Illinois Review

Rep. Dan Lipinski Caves to Pressure from Pelosi

2009-11-08T00:48:25-06:00

By Mark Rhoads

Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-3rd District in southwest Cook County) often makes a great show of attending Sunday mass at St. John of The Cross Parish in Western Springs. He thinks today he got the political cover he needed by voting for the Bart Supak amendment that would have kept the Hyde Amendment in place and prohibited federal money being used to pay for taking the life of unborn innocent children. But when that amendment lost, Lipinski buckled to pressure and voted against his convictions and for the Pelosi bill which will pay for abortions. Lipinski is not normally a bad congressman, but this is the worst and most immoral vote of his short career which now hopefully will get much shorter. The third district is Democratic in the city parts of the district but even that part is socially conservative. The only reason Dan got elected was because people had high regard for his father, former Congressman Bill Lipinski who was always a reliable pro-life ally of the late Rep. Henry Hyde. So far apparently no Republican has filed to try to challenge Lipinski and it will be up to Cook County Commissioner Tony Peraica and other GOP committeeman in the district to find a challenger. I hope they don't lay down on the job and give Danny boy a pass. He deserves a real pro-life challenger who would be stong enough to stand up to pro-abortion fanatics such as Obama and Pelosi. A pro-life independent conservative Democrat with GOP backing could give Dan him a run for his money in 2010. Some way must be found to educate Catholic and pro-life voters in Lipinski's district that he can no longer be trusted to stand up to the pro-abortion lobby when the chips are really down.

If you're for life, you should be against Democrats' health care plan

2009-11-07T21:56:39-06:00

from the Republican National Committee:

House Will Vote Today On Amendment From Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) That Would Prevent Federal Funding Of Abortion In Democrats’ Health Care Experiment. “House Democratic leaders agreed Friday night to settle an impasse over abortion by letting the entire House vote on a proposed solution … Under the agreement, anti-abortion Democrats will be permitted to offer an amendment on the House floor to the health-care overhaul bill. The amendment would prohibit a new government-run insurance plan created by the health-care bill from offering to cover abortion services … It would also block people who received federal subsidies for the purchase of health insurance from buying policies that offered coverage for abortions. (Lori Montgomery, “Democrats To Resolve Abortion Impasse On House Floor,” The Washington Post, 11/7/09)

But House Democrat Leaders Provide No Guarantee That Restriction On Abortion Funding Will Appear In Final Bill. REP. JOHN BOEHNER: “I want to ask the Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Waxman, whether he can guarantee me that if the House does vote in fact for Mr. Stupak’s amendment, the gentlemen will guarantee me that when this bill comes back from conference that that language will remain in the bill.” … REP. HENRY WAXMAN (D-CA): “No guarantee can be made by me or any other member at this time.” (Rep. John Boehner and Rep. Henry Waxman, Floor Debate On H.R. 3962, 11/7/09)

And Democrats’ Bill Does Not Include Strong Conscience Protection For Doctors Who Don’t Want To Perform Abortions. “While Section 259 of the bill maintains essential nondiscrimination protections for providers who decline involvement in abortion, the legislation also requires each region of the insurance exchange to include at least one health plan with unlimited abortion, contrary to the policy of all other federal health programs; and conscience protection on issues beyond abortion have yet to be included in this bill.” (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Bishops To House: Keep Abortion Funding Out Of Health Care Reform, Make Health Care Available To Vulnerable,” Press Release, 11/6/09)

Democrats’ Bill Still Includes Government Involvement In End-Of-Life Care Consultations.“SEC. 1233. VOLUNTARY ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION. … An individual may receive the voluntary advance care planning care planning consultation provided for under this subsection no more than once every 5 years unless there is a significant change in the health or health related condition of the individual. ‘‘(4) For purposes of this section, the term ‘order regarding life sustaining treatment’ means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that effectively communicates the individual’s preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, is signed and dated by a practitioner, and is in a form that permits it to be followed by health care professionals across the continuum of care.’’ (H.R. 3962, “Affordable Health Care for America Act,” Introduced 10/29/09)

Democrats’ Bill Has Provisions For “Comparative Effectiveness Research,” Which Could Lead To Rationing Of Care. “Increases the independence of the Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission: Comptroller General appoints the commission, no longer established by the Secretary of HHS; establishes a separate independent funding stream for the Commission; ensures that the Commission is able to make reports without HHS review. Improves protections to ensure that subpopulations are appropriately accounted for in research study design and implementation and requires a researcher with expertise in racial and ethnic minority health research to be on the Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission. Clarifies that comparative effectiveness reports are not considered as mandates for payment, coverage or treatment and that no federal officer or employee will interfere with the practice of medicine” (Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and Labor, “ Affordable Health Care For America Act Section-by-Section Analysis,” Fact Sheet, 10/29/09)

DEMS’ HEALTH CARE EXPERIMENT WILL ALSO HURT FAMILIES’ POCKETBOOKS, MEDICAL CARE

Dems’ Bill Paid For By $730 Billion In Tax Hikes, Including Income Tax Increase On Many Small Businesses That Will Kill Jobs. “This [surtax] would hit job creators especially hard because more than six of every 10 who earn that much are small business owners, operators or investors, according to a 2007 Treasury study... America’s successful small businesses would pay higher tax rates than the Fortune 500, and fo r that matter than most companies around the world ...” (“Estimated Revenue Effects Of Possible Modifications To The Revenue Provisions Of H.R. 3962, The ‘Affordable Health Care For America Act’,” Joint Committee On Taxation Publication, 10/29/09; Editorial, “The Small Business Surtax,” The Wall Street Journal, 7/14/09)

Dems’ $456 Billion In Cuts To Medicare And Medicaid Would Force Doctors To Decline Seniors. “Rep. Eric Massa said tightening provider payments could lead to access problems for patients. ‘We will force doctors to decline Medicare patients,’ he said after a raucous town-hall meeting in Upstate New York. ‘If we believe these savings are there, let’s test the concept. But we can’t hinge the entire funding of this bill on these not-yet-seen savings.’“ (Congressional Budget Office, Letter To Honor Charles B. Rangel, 10/29/09; Ceci Connolly, “Seniors Remain Wary of Health-Care Reform,” The Washington Post, 8/9/09)

Dems’ Bill Hides “Doc Fix” Provision That Would Add Over $200 Billion To Deficit. “The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the House plan to prevent cuts to doctors’ Medicare reimbursement rates would cost $210 billion over 10 years, according to a just released analysis. The big price tag is no surprise and was the main reason House Democrats introduced the so-called ‘doc fix’ legislation separately from their $1.2 trillion reform bill -- Dems were trying to keep the cost of the reform bill as close to President Obama’s target of $900 billion as possible.” (Chris Frates, “BREAKING-CBO Releases Cost Estimate On House Doc Fix,” Politico’s “Live Pulse” Blog, 11/4/09)

New Mandates In Dems’ Bill “Could Have The Unintended Consequence Of Raising Health Insurance Premiums.” “Obamacare could have the unintended consequence of raising health insurance premiums and causing a decline in the number of people with insurance ... A key feature of the House and Senate health bills would prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to anyone with preexisting conditions ... This well-intentioned feature would provide a strong incentive for someone who is healthy to drop his or her health insurance, saving the substantial premium costs ... As healthy individuals decline coverage in this way, insurance companies would come to have a sicker population. The higher cost of insuring that group would force insurers to raise their premiums.” (Martin Feldstein, Op-Ed, “Obamacare’s Nasty Surprise,” The Washington Post, 11/6/09)

“Public Option” In Dems’ Bill Could Mean Over 88 Million Americans Losing Current Coverage. “Under current law, there will be about 158.1 million people who are covered under an employer plan as workers, dependents or early retirees in 2011. I f the act were fully implemented in that year, about 88.1 million workers would shift from private employer insurance to the public plan.” (John Shelis, Vice President, Lewin Group, “Analysis Of The July 15 Draft Of The American Affordable Health Choices Act Of 2009,” 7/17/09)

U.S. House health care debate livestreamed

2009-11-07T12:42:57-06:00

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

There will be several procedural votes throughout the day. One of special votes will be on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment that will restrict federal funding of abortion.

12:53 -- Pelosi's bill has now been called. Four hours of debate will be allowed.

Three Illinoisans among health care undecided, Cantor says

2009-11-07T09:29:46-06:00

Smart Girl Politics is featuring a list from Congressman Eric Cantor of the 69 U.S. Reps who reportedly remain "undecided" on the Pelosi health care plan. Three of those listed are from Illinois: Jerry Costello, Bill Lipinski and Debbie Halvorson.

Halvorson must be telling associates something different that she told her home district media. The Southtown Star's Elizabeth Martin reported last Wednesday that she would definitely support Obamacare.

"I stood firm on the fact that I would not and could not (support that)," Halvorson said. "Now we have a public option that competes on a level playing field."

But Costello and Lipinski are the only two prolife Democrats representing Illinois, and a vote on whether abortion will be included as a taxpayer-funded procedure will be put to the test Saturday, we're told. Lipinski and Costello's support for Pelosi's health care bill is likely to be determined by what happens with the Stupak/Pitts bill re-enforcing the Hyde Amendment and preventlng taxpayer funding of abortion.

If neither Costello, Lipinski or Halvorson are your congressional representatives, you might want to give your own reps a call to find out what they'll do when the Obamacare health bill is voted on today in the U.S. House.

Breaking: Dems cave on pro-life amendment

2009-11-07T08:45:59-06:00

UPDATE, 8:10a: Here' an email from a House source, sent in the wee hours, that offers an excellent explanation of what's happening:

After a very long day, the House leadership acquiesced to pro-life Democrats led by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) who have demanded a vote on the pro-life Stupak-Pitts amendment.

The Rules Committee reported a rule that allows for consideration of the Stupak-Pitts amendment which was cosponsored by Reps. Bart Stupak (D-MI), Brad Ellsworth (D-IN), Joe Pitts (R-PA), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA), Dan Lipinski (D-IL), and Chris Smith (R-NJ).

Stupak, Pitts, Kaptur, Dahlkemper, Smith and Lipinski all testified before the House Rules Committee tonight in support of their amendment to address the abortion funding concerns in H.R. 3962.

The amendment maintains the current policy of preventing federal funding for abortion and for benefits packages that include abortion. However, it clarifies that individuals, both who receive affordability credits and who do not, can with their own funds purchase separate supplemental coverage for elective abortions. It also clarifies that private plans that do not receive government subsidies may still offer elective abortions.

The rule for consideration of H.R. 3962 was reported tonight and allows for votes on 2 amendments and a motion to recommit. The amendments are the Stupak/Pitts pro-life amendment and the Republican substitute amendment which would implement a government wide permanent ban on abortion funding.

The House will meet tomorrow morning [JLS: today] at 9 am. Votes on noncontroversial bills are expected before 10 am. If everything goes as planned, the schedule for tomorrow will be as follows. The House will begin debate on the rule for H.R. 3962 followed by 4 hours of general debate on the bill. Once general debate is completed, the House will debate the Stupak/Pitts amendment for 20 minutes, followed by 1 hour of debate on the Republican substitute. Votes on Stupak/Pitts, the Republican substitute, the motion to recommit and final passage could occur at the same time late in the day. There is also a possibility the debate will carry over into Sunday.

This is a critical pro-life vote, and it will be essential to have groups contacting Members urging them to support the Stupak-Ellsworth-Pitts-Kaptur-Dahlkemper-Lipinski-Smith Amendment.

_______________

Email from Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life:

But now, as I write this at 2:41 AM, we've received the news that the Democratic leadership WILL ALLOW A VOTE on the pro-life amendment by Bart Stupak and Joe Pitts!

This is a major victory, as indicated by a CNN news report this morning. Ellsworth must have signed on to the Stupak/Pitts amendment, probably thrilled to do so after the tremendous backlash he got (examples here and here) for his phony pro-life amendment. Incredible that Catholic bishops were directly involved in the deal-making...

Anti-abortion Democrats will be allowed to offer an amendment during the House health care debate Saturday that would ban most abortion coverage from the public option and other insurance providers in the new so-called "exchange" the legislation would create, 3 Democratic sources told CNN.

The prohibition would exclude cases of rape, incest or if the mother's life is in danger, known as "Hyde" language.

The hotly anticipated vote on the nearly $1.1 trillion bill by the full House of Representatives is tentatively set for Saturday, but it could be delayed until Sunday. President Obama is expected to visit Capitol Hill on Saturday in hopes of gaining support among Democrats.

House Democratic leadership sources said that win or lose, they hope giving abortion foes the opportunity to vote will clear the way for passage of their health care bill.

Several anti-abortion Democrats will offer the amendment, including Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-IN, and Rep. Bart Stupak, D-MI, who are scoring a major victory in convincing Democratic leaders to allow this vote.

It is also a big win for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which used its power, especially with conservative Democrats in swing congressional districts, to help force Democratic leaders to permit a vote that most of them oppose.

"We didn't have a choice," said a Democratic leadership source. "We didn't have the votes" on health care without agreeing to this.

Planned Parenthood decried the amendment, saying it would result in the elimination of abortion coverage currently offered by most private health insurance plans.

"This amendment would violate the spirit of health care reform, which is meant to guarantee quality, affordable health care coverage for all by creating a 2-tiered system that would punish women, particularly those with low and modest incomes," the group said in a statement.

"Women won't stand for legislation that takes away their current benefits and leaves them worse off after health care reform than they are today."

The Democratic sources said people would be able to purchase riders with their own money for insurance that includes abortion coverage.

Stupak and other anti-abortion Democrats have argued for a strict abortion ban for some time, but Ellsworth had offered a less strict compromise measure that would have prohibited taxpayer dollars for abortions.

Liz Farrar, a spokeswoman for Ellsworth, told CNN that some 2 dozen Democratic lawmakers made it clear that they needed assurances from the Catholic bishops before they could sign on -- and that the religious group made clear it wanted to bolster the abortion restrictions.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other leaders were negotiating with the Catholic bishops and their representatives on Friday.

Late-night marathon talks in the speaker's office included staunch supporters of abortion rights, but they broke down.

"We came to the point where we actually had an agreement tonight, but it fell apart," Stupak said....

[HT: LifeNews.com]

Joel Pollak's message to Chicago Tea Partiers

2009-11-07T07:43:10-06:00

Obama Makes Polygamy a 21st Century Issue

2009-11-07T07:32:01-06:00

by Phyllis Schlafly

No sooner had we celebrated the exit of Barack Obama's Green Jobs Czar, Van Jones, because of his Communist connections, another off-the-wall Administration embarrassment surfaced. President Obama nominated for commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) a woman who signed a radical manifesto endorsing polygamy.

We thought our nation had settled the polygamy issue a century and a half ago, but this nomination makes it a 21st century controversy. Obama's nominee for the EEOC, a lesbian law-school professor named Chai R. Feldblum, signed a 2006 manifesto endorsing polygamous households (i.e., "in which there is more than one conjugal partner").

This document, entitled "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families & Relationships," argues that traditional marriage "should not be legally and economically privileged above all others." The American people obviously think otherwise, and current laws reflect our wishes.

Feldblum is not the only pro-polygamy Obama appointee. His Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, wrote a book in 2008 called "Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness" in which he urged that "the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government."

Sunstein argues that traditional marriage discriminates against single people by imposing "serious economic and material disadvantages." He asks, "Why not leave people's relationships to their own choices, subject to the judgments of private organizations, religious and otherwise?"

Sunstein also suggests "routine removal" of human organs because "the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone's permission."

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed in 1996 by overwhelming majorities in Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has identified more than 1,000 federal laws that are based on the traditional definition of marriage, including the tax laws that permit married couples the advantage of filing joint income tax returns and the Social Security benefits awarded to fulltime homemakers, both very popular federal laws.

The peculiar push to recognize polygamy as just another variety of marriage is a predictable and logical corollary of the political movement to recognize same-sex marriage. If our government cannot define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it follows that there can be no law against the union of a man and several women.

For years, polygamy, even though it is totally demeaning to women, has been embraced by the powerful American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Polygamy is one of the many controversial issues that were not raised during ACLU lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg's so-friendly Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

The ACLU's feminist president, Nadine Strossen, stated in a speech at Yale University in June 2005 that the ACLU defends "the right of individuals to engage in polygamy." On October 15, 2006, in a high-profile debate against Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Strossen stated that the ACLU supports the right to polygamy.

Speaking to the Federalist Society on November 18, 2006, the ACLU's executive director, Anthony Romero, confirmed his organization's support of polygamy.

The massive immigration that the United States has accepted in recent years includes large numbers of immigrants from Third World countries that approve of polygamy as well as marriage to children and to close relatives. We wonder if polygamists have been admitted to the U.S. and if they are continuing these customs in U.S. neighborhoods.

Attacks on the traditional legal definition of marriage come from the gay lobby seeking social recognition of their lifestyle, from the anti-marriage feminists, and from some libertarians who believe marriage should be merely a private affair, none of the government's business. These libertarians want to deny government the right to define marriage, set its standards, or issue marriage licenses.

Government now has and should have a very important role in defining who may get a license to marry. In America, it is and should be a criminal offense to marry more than one person at a time, or marry a child or a close relative, even though such practices are common in some foreign countries.

In Socialist Canada, which has already approved same-sex marriage, polygamy has suddenly become a live issue. British Columbia's Supreme Court is now being asked to decide if polygamy should remain illegal.

We may have to depend on the Republican Party to maintain government's proper role in defining and protecting traditional marriage. The very first Platform adopted by the Republican Party, in 1856, condemned polygamy and slavery as the "twin relics of barbarism," and the 2008 Republican Platform calls for "a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it."

More at www.Eagleforum.org

Why docs oppose socialized medicine

2009-11-07T06:53:00-06:00

SEIU objects to home health care worker election

2009-11-06T17:16:12-06:00

Parents who breathed a sigh of relief last month, thinking they were rid of union thugs knocking on their doors and calling them at home shouldn't relax yet.

SEIU is back. And with a vengeance.

This week, Illinois' Service Employees International Union (SEIU) filed a complaint with the American Arbitration Association saying during last month's balloting to determine whether home health care workers should unionize, the State of Illinois did not maintain neutrality.

The October 19th election, set into motion by Governor Pat Quinn's Executive Order 09-15, allowed families that care for their severely disabled family members to determine whether they could collectively bargain via public sector unions. They were also asked which union -- the SEIU or AFSCME -- they would prefer.

Sixty-six percent of the 3300 home health care workers queried voted to reject all union representation.

The SEIU didn't like the results of that election, so, they're appealing to the group that administered the election, pointing to the State of Illinois as not maintaining neutrality in the process.

"The SEIU is demanding a 6 months cooling off period followed by reeducation and a new election," Pam Harris told Illinois Review Thursday. "The loud and clear message sent by 66 percent of the voters in the election should have been enough to settle the issue once and for all."

The parents now wait for AAA's decision as to whether the board will grant the SEIU and AFSCME another chance to force unionization on the families.

On a related matter, one of the parents involved in the union election, Gordon Stiefel, returned to Cook County Circuit Court Judge Epstein’s courtroom this past Tuesday. Stiefel, a pro se plaintiff, asked the court to declare the rights, duties or obligations of each party in the home health care workers' dispute. The question Stiefel raises is who the home health workers work for -- the state of Illinois or the disabled family members?

“We now await the court’s decision on the complex and yet simple matter of who is the employer of personal support workers in Illinois and does the public interest of State allow the State to inject itself between the employer and employee relationship," Stiefel said.

"Stiefel is still looking for pro bono legal counsel. Every attorney he has spoken with either has limited labor law experience or a conflict with previous and current client," Harris told Illinois Revie. "Please, if you can recommend an attorney, contact Gordon Stiefel at taggroup@sbcglobal.net."

SEIU-bullied IL home health care workers hit national news

Home caretaker harrassed by union thugs, thanks to Gov Quinn

Citizens take issue with Dundee Stop Light Camera program

2009-11-06T16:53:14-06:00

from the Dundee's Stop Light Camera

East Dundee resident Allen Skillicorn is tired of local government corruption, lack of fiscal transparency, and the encroachment of civil liberties. In response, Skillicorn founded Grassroots Revolution, an organization designed to enable average citizens to take back control of their government, including the removal of stop light cameras.

He recently spoke to the Fox Valley Libertarian Party about the Stop Light Cameras in the villages of East Dundee and West Dundee. He has discovered that local citizens are very uneasy about the invasion of privacy, safety problems, and profit motives behind installing these cameras. Many impartial studies prove that both accident and injury rates increase after installing stop light cameras.

[http://www.grassrootsrevolution.us/9_studies_that_prove_cameras_hurt_public_safety.pdf]

”These cameras are only about profit, not safety. Follow the money. The camera companies and cities, eager to make a profit, only use biased surveys. Guess who paid for those surveys? You got it – the stop light camera companies.” explained Allen Skillicorn.

Statistically over 90% of the fines are for stop line infractions (like stopping too far past the line in a poorly designed intersection) or people not completely stopping on a right turn on red. “These cameras only prove that the light timing and intersections are poorly designed. Instead of correcting the intersections with engineering solutions, the cities want to fine motorists,” stated Skillicorn.

Other local activists are also concerned that these fines are hard to challenge. Recipients of camera fines are not allowed to confront their accuser nor view the service records of the machines and Illinois state law has no required performance standards or maintenance guidelines for these cameras. Because these fines are not technically a criminal act, the municipality can waive motorists' right to a jury trial and other legal protections.

Skillicorn plans to address the local village boards and remind voters which trustees voted in favor of the stop light camera companies. Currently, camera companies receive the first $3000 in fine revenue each month plus $66 dollars of each subsequent $100 fine. The results: camera companies are raking in the profits, safety is diminished and traffic is more congested because fewer motorists are willing to legally turn right on red for fear of the flash bulb and the $100 fine.

For more information please click here:

http://www.grassrootsrevolution.us/camera_comments.pdf

Stop Light Cameras Increase Accidents: 9 Studies That Prove It:

http://www.grassrootsrevolution.us/9_studies_that_prove_cameras_hurt_public_safety.pdf

Schaumburg Township GOP Endorses Dodge

2009-11-06T15:09:25-06:00

from the Dodge for Comptroller campaign

Thursday night, the Schaumburg Township Republican Organization unanimously endorsed Jim Dodge, Republican candidate for the Office of Illinois Comptroller. Michael Adelizzi is the township chairman.

“An official nod from this highly respected organization over my opponents (Judy Baar-Topinka and Bill Kelly) is more evidence of the call to move the Republican party forward,” Dodge said.

Garrido: Cook County's budget balanced on taxpayers' backs

2009-11-06T10:50:03-06:00

from the Garrido for Cook County Board President campaign

SCHILLER PARK – John Garrido publicly addressed the Cook County Board Finance Committee on Tuesday, November 3, urging them to adopt a budget which holds true to the principles of integrity and efficiency. He made the following statement:

My name is John Garrido, and I live on North Austin Avenue on the Northwest side of Chicago. It's incredible that in such economically difficult times, Todd Stroger can actually present this budget with a smile on his face. The scary thing is that he actually thinks he's doing a good job.

Of course the budget is balanced; it's balanced on the backs of the taxpayers. This budget also assumes our sales tax revenue will continue to increase; it's estimated by the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce that this year alone we will lose 6% in sales tax revenue. As businesses and jobs flee the county, where will we be in another 4 years?

Typical of inefficient government, Todd Stroger feels the need to spend it because he has it. He displays no desire to manage, primarily because he has the taxpayer as a steady stream of revenue.

One such striking example is the bloated and inefficient highway department budget. It’s amazing that a budget of over 16 million dollars even exists. Well over 90% of our County roads lay within local, urbanized or suburbanized municipalities, yet our highway employees are responsible for 33% less work than employees in surrounding counties. Still we maintain a highway system as if Cook County is predominately rural.

Another example is over 250 thousand dollars requested for a film commission office, a new expenditure to this year’s recession budget that never existed before. And, despite our economy shrinking, we are presented with a budget that increases nearly 6%; including capital improvements. This budget is not, in any way, shape or form a budget of efficient government.

This budget proposal also lacks integrity, in that it’s rife with patronage opportunities that have exploded. Looking at the Office of the President alone, the number of full time employee positions has a proposed increase of 31.7%, including a new Special Assistant to the President making $172,000 per year; what does this person do and why do they make more than the president? His Chief of Staff makes $181,000 per year; again, why is his salary higher than the
President’s salary?

Additionally, the proposed budget requests three full time positions for a cable television network, and three full time positions for a film office. For a budget which supposedly uses performance based budgeting principles, these should be soundly rejected as frivolous.

At minimum, this budget should be frozen to last year’s budget. Ideally, this budget can be given a thorough line-by-line evaluation and reduced by 5%, instead of increased nearly 6%.

Remember these principles – efficiency and integrity – and I have faith the budget will reflect what’s truly best for Cook County.

Higgins launches campaign with GOP leader support

2009-11-06T10:42:26-06:00

from the House Republican Organization (HRO)

SCHAUMBURG, Illinois. Joined by House Republican Leader Tom Cross, Schaumburg Township Republican Committeeman Mike Adelizzi, Bloomingdale Township Republican Chairman John Dabrowski and local elected officials, Ryan Higgins officially launched his campaign for State Representative from the 56th District.

“Ryan Higgins represents the next generation of leaders for Illinois,” said House Republican Leader Tom Cross. “To move Illinois in a new direction, we need people with fresh ideas, new approaches and a commitment to the people they serve. Ryan embodies everything we need in new leadership to help address the substantial problems created during the last 7 years of Democrat rule in Illinois.”

Earlier this year, Higgins was endorsed by the Schaumburg Township Republican Organization, securing over 60% of the vote by precinct captains.

“Ryan impressed our organization with his energy and enthusiasm,” said Schaumburg Township Committeeman Mike Adelizzi. “We are enthusiastically endorsing him and working for him. He is the right candidate at the right time to win back this seat.”

Higgins said one of his top priorities when he gets to Springfield will be to begin the process of significant budget and ethical reforms to state government.

“Change will require a fresh wave of Republican reformers in the General Assembly, starting right here in the 56th District,” said Higgins. “The 2010 elections offer us an unprecedented opportunity for reform, and with hard work and a positive vision, we can and will put Illinois back on a path toward prosperity.”

Higgins is a 28-year-old healthcare attorney and former staff member of former U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald. Ryan graduated from Dartmouth College and the Duke University School of Law. He is a 5-year resident of Schaumburg and a 21-year resident of Palatine, where he attended St. Theresa Catholic School and William Fremd High School.

Stop the Abortion Mandate

2009-11-06T10:35:41-06:00

While traditional values conservatives are often ridiculed for continuing to decry abortion as a national disgrace, it appears that touchy issue of abortion has become the tipping issue for Democrat Blue Dogs. These conservative Democrats in Congress don't want to be hung with responsibility for taxpayers being forced to fund the killing of the unborn in Pelosi's health care plan.

Too bad there's not enough equally moral Democrats in the Illinois legislature to stop state tax dollars paying for abortions, as we've all being doing for years.

Unemployment: Proof that Foster’s stimulus has failed

2009-11-06T10:03:12-06:00

The national unemployment rate has broke into double-digits and stands at a 26-year high of 10.2%. This troubling news comes as Democrats, including Bill Foster, continue with their absurd claims that the stimulus package is working:

“’I am pleased that the stimulus continues to spur economic activity within the 14th District, and helps maintain our area leadership in high technology,’ Rep. Foster said.” (Bill Foster Press Release, http://foster.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=141294, August 5, 2009)

Jobless rate tops 10 pct. for first time since '83

Unemployment rate tops 10 percent for first time since 1983; 190,000 jobs lost in October

Christopher S. Rugaber

Associated Press

November 6, 2009

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Jobless-rate-tops-10-pct-for-apf-563122944.html?x=0&.v=8

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The unemployment rate has surpassed 10 percent for the first time since 1983 -- and is likely to go higher.

Nearly 16 million people can't find jobs even though the worst recession since the Great Depression has apparently ended. The Labor Department said Friday that the economy shed a net total of 190,000 jobs in October, less than the downwardly revised 219,000 lost in September. August job losses were also revised lower, to 154,000 from 201,000.

But the loss of jobs last month exceeded economists' estimates. It's the 22nd straight month the U.S. economy has shed jobs, the longest on records dating back 70 years.

Counting those who have settled for part-time jobs or stopped looking for work, the unemployment rate would be 17.5 percent, the highest on records dating from 1994.

The jobless rate rose from 9.8 percent in September...

Abortion provisions provide best chance to defeat Pelosi's HR 3962

2009-11-06T09:00:00-06:00

from Eagle Forum

The House Leadership announced last evening that the floor debate on the health care bill will begin at 9:00am this Saturday morning, November 7th with votes occurring as early as 9am. The 24-hour countdown to the vote begins right now!

Yesterday, while thousands of Americans rallied outside the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. to protest the pending vote on the liberal Congress' Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962), President Obama was on the Hill as well, lobbying the moderate Democrats who have expressed some concerns and opposition to this bill. Today, President Obama will be back on the Hill making a final effort to strong-arm the red state Democrats into supporting his government takeover of health care.

Please be aware of the following points on abortion funding in H.R. 3962. The abortion concerns are the best chance to defeat the "rule" (a procedural vote to proceed to debate) on Saturday:

H.R. 3962 authorizes the "public option" to pay for all elective abortions. H.R. 3962 also creates a new national federal agency from which the "public option" will be administered. All federal agencies operate purely from federal funds because those are the only type of funds they can use, and the new Health Insurance Exchange will be no different. Once private dollars are transferred to the federal government or a federal agency in the form of a fine, a tax, or a paid premium, they are then no longer private funds - they become federal funds once the federal government assumes control of them.

The Ellsworth Amendment is a phony "pro-life" amendment. Sponsored by so-called pro-life Democrat Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-IN), this amendment, which is being discussed as a possible inclusion to the Democrats' grand Managers Amendment in an effort to appease some of the 40 pro-life Democrats who have vowed to vote NO on a bill that provides for abortion funding, will do nothing to prevent federal funds from going towards abortion coverage. All the Ellsworth Amendment will do is require the Health Insurance Exchange to hire contractors which will then pay the abortionists. So, instead of the abortionist receiving a check directly from the U.S. government, they will receive it from a contractor who is funneled money through the U.S. government.
The real Pitts-Stupak pro-life amendment was rejected in committee and denied the chance to get a floor vote on Saturday. It is very important that you tell your Representatives (especially the 40 pro-life Democrats) that a vote for H.R. 3962 in its current form or even with the useless Ellsworth Amendment amounts to a vote for the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade (1973). Nothing less than an explicitly exclusion of federal funding for abortion and government subsidies for plans that cover abortion will be considered pro-life language.

Even worse, a sure sign that legislative language marketed to be "pro-life" is in fact not pro-life is when one of Congress' most stalwart abortion supporters has no problem with it:

"None of us really had any objections to the Ellsworth language. In fact, we think he did a good job."
-Pro-Choice Caucus co-chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Congress Daily, 11/4/09

Many people often ask us why President Obama hasn't yet moved a major abortion bill through Congress-we say, the health care bill is his abortion bill!

TAKE ACTION!

Tell your Representative to VOTE AGAINST THE RULE to H.R. 3962 because the "rule" does not allow an up-or-down vote on the pro-life Pitts-Stupak amendment. A vote for the "rule" is a vote to allow federal funding for elective abortions on a massive scale for the very first time in American history.

There are 24 hours before the vote tomorrow. Please do all you can to phone and contact your Representatives and to get the word out that the Ellsworth Amendment is a phony.

For those of you who reside in districts with target Democrats, please concentrate on them. The "declared NOs" need just as much pressure to oppose this bill as the "undecideds."

Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121

Manzullo: "Madame Speaker, Tear up this bill!"

2009-11-06T08:28:59-06:00

Yesterday, U.S. Representative Don Manzullo of IL's 16 CD addressed a rally at the nation's Capitol steps:

Ft Hood tragedy reaches Chicago area

2009-11-06T08:11:30-06:00

It's hard to imagine how difficult it must have been for the Pearson family in Bolingbrook last night when they learned their son was one of the Ft. Hood soldiers slain. Sheryll and Jeff Pearson told the Chicago Tribune their 21 year old son was preparing to be sent to Iraq in January after training for a year to disarm bombs. Michael was among the 13 killed and 28 injured in a ruthless, cold-blooded massacre perpetrated by a deluded Army major.

We've visited Ft. Hood on several occasions, and could picture the chaos while the news reports poured in. Our son-in-law and daughter were recently transferred to another assignment, and it took us a moment in the shock of the news to recall they weren't in danger in Killeen. The Southtown Star called and asked our thoughts while news was still coming in about the tragedy on the nation's largest Army base.

The base is where soldiers land on their way home from war, she said.

"You get your kids and your husband and your family home, and you think everybody can just breathe," she said. "The big thing is to keep it over there, the fight over there. To have that come back there in their own back yard where they are safe, man, that's got to be really shaking them up."

Our prayers are with all the families of the injured and lost. Ft. Hood's a huge family of Americans with patriotic servant hearts. They are unsung heroes and this tragedy is the ultimate physical and psychological betrayal by a fellow soldier, a ranking officer and a trusted mental health counselor.

This incident will affect everyone at Ft. Hood for a while, and the trauma will affect all who have loved ones there. We all are reminded it's by God's grace and timing that more of us didn't get that dreaded call.

Chicago's Mark Rubin protests Obama's NEA

2009-11-06T07:39:26-06:00

In defiance of the National Endowment for the Arts and In frustration with Barack Obama's freedom-destroying policies, Chicago artist Mark Rubin does the unthinkable and documents his own political protest by destroying a masterful portrait of Obama in this YouTube swarming the internet.

All is explained in this unusual 10 minute movie.

H/T DJ

Schaumburg Township GOP goes for Proft

2009-11-05T23:34:57-06:00

Thursday night, Schaumburg Township GOP organization chose to endorse media spokesman Dan Proft for governor in the February 2010 GOP gubernatorial primary. Proft supporter Dean Dahlgren told Illinois Review that in order to obtain the 60 percent for endorsement, Proft needed 23 votes. He got 24.

" Proft won by a large margin. All the other candidates were in the single digits," Dahlgren reported. "He got the votes he needed on the first ballot. In the subsequent balloting, Proft's support got bigger.

Mike Adelezzi is the Schaumburg Township GOP Chairman.

Rauschenberger on Jobs & the Economy

2009-11-05T16:01:25-06:00

Health care portability is dumb

2009-11-05T16:00:45-06:00

by Evert Evertson

If the following sentence does not get you to read the entire column below, I predict a more rapid path to the end of our once 'free country'.

"Homelandsecuritynewswire.com reports that the government has set a goal of capturing only 29% of people and goods entering our borders illegally."

We have conservatives (this includes talking heads and entertainers such as Limbaugh, Beck, Dobbs, Hannity - not Michael Savage) DEMANDING health care insurance that is portable from state to state. THIS IS NOT EVEN DUMB - IT IS (imho) STUPID! The only way for anything to apply to all states and to be described as "portable". it has to be controlled by D.C.!!!

I have been against mandatory use of E-Verify, the implementation of REAL ID and now the PASS Act ever since the dots were connected relative to keeping our borders open to increase dis-organization in our society via multiple languages and identity theft along with increased crime plus, plus, plus. We do not need "portable" health insurance nor do we need REAL ID nor do we need the PASS ACT nor do we need mandatory E-Verify. What we do need is secure borders and ports of entry plus the elimination of several FEDERAL offices such as the Dept. of Education.

Finally others are starting to get the message. Read the column below.
Our open borders is all part of what may be a designed plan to decimate a once great country.
Mind you, if we continue to let our federal government, transgender / homosexual groups and teacher unions drive our education system, our Representative Government is finished.
http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/pages/book.htm

Legal U.S. residents have a choice - read the column below and react by getting to work to get honest, knowledgeable - not "educated" - candidates elected to office next year or prepare for a total loss of freedom. The current bunch in control of D.C. care not one whit about the Constitution of the United States of America. The Third Army is already in place.

Evert Evertsen
Harvard, IL

Andrzejewski goes after McKenna in new ads

2009-11-05T14:11:00-06:00

Hughes Says Kirk Appeal to Palin a “Desperate Move”

2009-11-05T14:10:00-06:00

from the Hughes for U.S. Senate campaign

(HINSDALE, IL) – A new Wilson Research analysis of polling data from the U.S. Senate campaigns of Mark Kirk and Patrick Hughes, respectively, indicates bad news for the Kirk campaign. This comes on the heels of news from Kirk’s Senate campaign that he is seeking the endorsement of former Gov. Sarah Palin.

"I believe Mark Kirk, who has consistently supported President Obama's legislative agenda, including cap and trade legislation, is quickly realizing that Republican Primary voters do not share his extreme views. In a desperate attempt to prove otherwise, he is seeking the endorsement of Sarah Palin, a true Reagan conservative, to help disguise his liberal voting record, "remarked Hughes.

In its comparative analysis of polling data from both U.S. Senate campaigns, Wilson Research found Patrick Hughes’ live-person polling data to be statistically more accurate than the “robopolling” conducted by Mark Kirk’s campaign. Here is a summary of the findings from Wilson Research:

Wilson Research indicated that the Market Research Insight Survey Market Research Insight sampled n=500 likely GOP primary voters in a poll sponsored by businessman Patrick Hughes in a standard live-person telephone survey in September 2009. The respondents for this survey were chosen from a population of registered voters in Illinois who have a recent history of voting in Republican primaries.

The ideological background of the primary electorate appears to favor a candidate such as Patrick Hughes. Seven in ten respondents (69%) described themselves as ideologically conservative, compared to only a quarter (25%) of respondents describing themselves as ideologically moderate.
The findings of the images and ballot of the Market Research Insight survey demonstrate that the race is competitive.
In the survey, Congressman Kirk has a favorable to unfavorable ratio of 2.7:1. Patrick Hughes’ favorable rating is much higher, at 9:1, but has far less name ID than the Congressman (64% for Kirk versus 24% for Hughes).

According to information released by the Kirk campaign, Magellan Data and Mapping Strategies, conversely, found that Congressman Kirk will easily win the GOP nomination. Wilson Research also indicated that Magellan Data and Mapping Strategies conducted a poll of n=848 likely GOP primary voters in a poll sponsored by Congressman Mark Kirk through IVR polling. However, VR polling—often referred to as “robopolling”—has been demonstrated to be unreliable in assessing an electorate.

Pelosi: "We Will have the votes"

2009-11-05T14:08:07-06:00

The Hill is reporting today that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is fairly certain that by Saturday night, she'll have the votes needed in the US House to pass her 1,990 page plan for a government takeover of health care.

“We will,” Pelosi said, when asked if she had the 218 votes needed to pass the $1.055 trillion bill, designed to extend healthcare to 96 percent of the population and create a government health insurance plan.

Pelosi made the prediction as Democrats prepare for a rare Saturday evening vote on their healthcare reform bill, the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s agenda for his first year in office.

Your i-Pelosi app is on its way

2009-11-05T13:54:07-06:00

Now you can carry all 1,990 pages with you anywhere. Sort of.

Meers blasts Halvorson on healthcare vote

2009-11-05T13:51:17-06:00

from the Meers for Congress campaign

The announcement that Rep. Debbie Halvorson will vote for the Democrat health plan with a public option drew sharp criticism from GOP congressional candidate, Henry Meers.

Using terms often applied to Mafia operatives, Meers called Halvorson a “made member” of the Chicago political machine. Her obedience to the ‘dons’ of the Chicago “mob,” whether they be in City Hall or the White House, is legendary,” said Meers.

Meers said her vote shows two things – that they are desperate for every vote they can get and that Halvorson is a classic Democrat machine operative who will put her party ahead of the people when given a choice.

Meers explained that many times, in districts were a vote would be unpopular, Democrat leaders will give their legislators a “pass,” meaning they can vote against the party leadership because the do not need the votes to win.

“Because of the strong opposition to the Obama/Pelosi heath plan among her voters, she would normally get a ‘pass,’ but they need her vote. So, she does what a loyal solder must do – obey orders,” Meers charged.

Meers said that Halvorson’s promise to vote for government takeover of private healthcare is a slap in the face to the people who elected her to represent them – Democrats and Republicans alike.

Meers said that Halvorson ignores the fact that her district produced the largest Tea Party rally in the nation outside of Washington. “This will not be forgotten by those good people,” Meers added.

According to Meers, “We are seeing ‘the Chicago way’ played out on Capitol Hill.”

Meers said that this vote on health care alone should be sufficient reason to remove Halvorson from office – and the sooner the better,” Meers concluded.

Barack Office Poison

2009-11-05T13:27:08-06:00

by Teri O'Brien

It's such a relief to know that B. Hussein Obama, who has plenty of time for golf and date nights with the race and entitlement obsessed First Klingon, but not so much with General McChrystal, wasn't obsessing over Tuesday's elections, especially the dems' beatdown in Virginia, and their shocking defeat in New Jersey. What a bring down for the One to face the awful truth that he is not only not "the answer," but is what they used to call back in the day, "box office poison," as in anything he touches turns to dreck.

No doubt when his aides interrupted his viewing of that sickening HBO documentary about himself, which he no doubt had on an endless loop, to inform him that, despite his spending virtually every single non-golf, non-date night minute there to help out his Wall Street refugee pal John "Seat belt? What seat belt?" Corzine" in his bid to become governor, that the rich guy had lost to the fat guy, he no doubt shrugged. This defeat could not possibly be about him. After all, he's the One we've been waiting for. As it turns out, he is!

The one we've been waiting for to smack average Americans with the reality of what an extreme left-wing agenda means for this country: bankrupting the next 2 or 3 generations, unprecedented government coercion, the end of discretionary income for the vast majority of Americans, Americans at the mercy of the political class when they are most vulnerable (when a child, spouse or parent is ill). Only one lingering question remains: in this tough real estate market, how will Barack and Michelle sell the house that they bought in New Jersey?

Funny how, even though Tuesday's elections had absolutely NO impact on the White House, at least according to their senior apparatchiks, who when asked replied “there were elections this week? Who knew?” suddenly David Axelrod was giving an interview to Fox News yesterday. Wait a second--I thought that they weren't a legitimate news organization! Could it be that by talking to Fox, the Obamabots are hoping to rebrand themselves again as "reasonable" and "moderate?"

Could it be that they are realizing how idiotic it is, with 10% unemployment and the war in Afghanistan going poorly, to focus of demonizing a television network whose only failing is telling the truth about Sham WOW (Walks on Water)? I don't think it matters, Guys. The celebutard voters that you "energized" last year (as in getting people to vote whose only previous experience with voting occurred on Tuesday night on a cell phone--yes, American Idol) don't have the first clue about public policy, and they didn't turn out for you in this week's elections.

Perhaps even some of the ignoranti who voted for this narcissistic, inexperienced, unaccomplished and very dangerous poseur/empty suit are starting to suffer from buyer’s remorse. Perhaps the man-god is also having buyer’s remorse about the “comprehensive plan” for Afghanistan that he announced in March. In that Fox News interview referenced above, Major Garrett asked He Who Used to Walk on Water when he would announce his answer on the additional troops Gen. McChrystal has stated that he needs to win in Afghanistan.

His puppet master Axelrod repeated the infuriating reply “soon.” Gen. Thomas McInerney (Ret.) appeared this morning on Fox News, and was asked about this “soon” BS (Barry Soetoro). Let me paraphrase his reply: In the Pentagon, they say he took 4 months to choose a dog, and when he couldn’t decide, finally Sen. Kennedy gave him one. He voted present on the dog, and now he’s voting present when the lives of American troops are at risk.

Hey, I’ve got an idea. Tell B. Hussein that the situation in Afghanistan has really gotten critical. The U.N. is pulling 600 of its peeps out of the country due to security concerns. C’mon, Barry. We know that, even as you masquerade as Commander-in-Chief, you share the attitude of your pals Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers and Bernandine Dohrn toward the U.S. military, but we’re talking the U.N. here. Now things are serious.

Bill Foster: The Say Nothing Congressman

2009-11-05T12:46:50-06:00

by the Ghost of John Brown

Recently I received in the mail, a very pretty flier from my dear Congressman, Bill Foster. Oh, it is very nicely done. 8-1/2 x 11, full fold out. It has pictures of a concerned congressman listening intently to citizens. It shows the Congressman at a manufacturing facility in Gilberts. It also shows a guy with a clipboard in the middle of a field while it is being plowed. Don't know if I quite understand that one. Perhaps it is a campaign worker waiting to get another signature on a petition. Seems inefficient.

By the way, there is a sentence on the back page "This mailing was prepared, published and mailed at taxpayers expense". Wow, a congressman that will be honest when he wastes your money. Maybe I like this guy after all. Errrr, maybe not.

The whole focus of the mailing is the recent "Cap and Trade" bill. The Congressman is trying his best to explain his vote. The trouble is, he speaks in so much double talk, it is hard to understand just where in the heck he's going with it.

To be fair to the Congressman, let me re-print, word for word, what the Congressman says. I don't want any of his liberal trolls that come on Illinois Review (and yes, we know who you are), to accuse me of taking Congressman Courageous out of context.

Rep. Foster supports energy independence and voted against a flawed cap-and-trade bill. Outlines his approach to creating American jobs, saving the environment and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

(note:that last sentence is typed correctly. The Congressman needs someone in his office that understands sentence structure)

As a scientist, I believe that climate change is real and that action is necessary. It is also crucial that we restructure our energy systems to increase efficiency and reduce our dependence on imported sources.

However, as a businessman, I have always believed we have a responsibility to act in a way that comes with the lowest possible cost to the economy. A more thoughtful bill could have reduced significantly more greenhouse gasses without doing harm to our economy. It is my home that the Senate will make significant improvements to this legislation.

Now the problem with this is that there was only one substantive amendment that was put forward in the House, and Congressman Foster voted against it. So, if Congressman Foster really thought it was a flawed bill, and he thought he could do better, why didn't he proposed any amendments? Hmmm, curious. Let's keep reading.

Foster's scientific and business principles to reduce greenhouse gasses and create a clean energy future for America:

Provide incentives for all energy efficiency improvements such as solar, wind, and biofuels that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pay for themselves over the lifetime of equipment before punishing agriculture and energy-intensive industries

Create incentives and distribution networks for next generation cellulosic ethanol produced from corn stover, switchgrass, and advanced energy crops to reduce energy and greenhouse gas emissions from ethanol.

Make reducing carbon emissions a global policy that gets China and India to lower their emissions, leveling the playing field for our businesses and protecting American jobs.

Pursue advanced energy research on promising technologies rather than subsidizing premature deployment of inefficient technologies.

Minimize impact on American farmers and businesses while creating millions of green jobs.

OK, that is pretty much it from Congressman Courageous. There are a few other quotes from other people that really have nothing to do with the Congressman, but he threw them in to make himself feel important.

Let's look a little bit more at that last section. Nearly all of the "ideas" that the Congressman wants to pursue were already in the "Cap-n-Trade" bill. Provide incentives for promising energy sources - check. Creating millions of "green jobs" - check (well, the ideas were in the bill. How effective they will be is questionable).

Congressman Courageous is fond of different forms of ethanol (switchgrass, corn stover, etc.). There are numerous problems with this. Removing the corn stover (fancy word for the leaves and the stalks) can deplete the soil of nutrients and can increase erosion. However, the really significant flaw in Mr. Foster's analysis is that biofuels INCREASE emissions instead of reduce emissions, per this study. The discussion of biofuels is not an ode to saving the planet, it is a big, fat, juicy bone thrown to agriculture. Recently we saw that the run up in ethanol production hurt food prices and consumed lots and lots of clean water. Question: if we plow under fields to plant switchgrass, won't it take fields out of food production? Hmmm - less food means higher prices if I got that whole supply and demand thing correct from my freshman Economics class.

Congressman Courageous also wants to see the bill cover a global policy to get China and India to lower their emissions. Question, Congressman: How would a bill in the United States Congress make China and India lower their emissions? Just curious, because I think I missed that day in civics class.

The Congressman wants to pursue advanced energy research instead of subsidizing premature deployment of inefficient technologies. Well that sounds really good. I mean, who wants to support inefficiency (hmmm, cellulosic ethanol comes to mind)? Care to name those inefficient technologies, Congressman or is this just an empty sentence that will make people feel good?

I've read this flyer about a dozen times now, and I can find a single, detailed thing that the Congressman really wants to do. It is complete and utter blather.

The Congressman SAYS that he wants energy independence, but last year he voted on a phony bill that allowed each and every state to veto drilling off of their coasts on the continental shelf, which essentially does nothing. Again - say you are for something, but in the fine language really show that you are not.

The real purpose of this flier is to give Congressman Courageous some cover. You see his leftist friends (and financiers) want to know that he is really a lefty. Thrown in some fancy words about cellulosic ethanol and advanced energy and you are halfway there. Say that you really WANTED to vote for a climate bill, and everyone gets all warm and fuzzy inside. Tell farmers that you like ethanol and you don't want to increase their costs, and you'll have free hay wagon rides at your fundraisers for the next 10 years. Tell business and voters that you don't like the impact on increased taxes, and you will have them jumping for joy.

The truth of the matter is, that Congressman Foster wants to play it both ways. This Congressman stands for nothing, and has done nothing. He just wants you to think that he cares. It's time for action, not taxpayer funded fliers.

The touchiest questions asked last night in Homer Glen

2009-11-05T12:26:45-06:00

At the closing of last night's gubernatorial debate...here's the UStream of the touchiest questions. Tough questions for Bill Brady, Adam Andrzejewski, Dan Proft, Bob Schillerstrom and Kirk Dillard.

Since we can't get the video to play on command only, we've moved the link to below the fold. It's worth the listen...the candidates like you've never heard them before.

GOP gubernatorial forum tonight

2009-11-05T12:08:22-06:00

The Illinois GOP is hosting a gubernatorial forum tonight at the Chicago Hilton in downtown Chicago. For the first time, both Andy McKenna and Jim Ryan will be appearing with the other five GOP primary contenders as they hash out issues confronting Illinoisans in 2010.

Adam Andrzejewski, Bill Brady, Kirk Dillard, Dan Proft and Bob Schillerstrom have been invited or participated in numerous forums over the past few months, and Illinois Review has covered several for our readers.

Tonight, we encourage you to either attend personally, visit one of the 15 locations statewide where the forum will be streamlined, or listen via Chicago's WLS AM 890. Should be on the radio as well as via their internet linkup.

Stay informed and pick a candidate. Time to get involved. Our state's in dire need of citizen involvement.

John Piper: No, Mr. President

2009-11-05T11:55:39-06:00

GOP candidates commence punching in Homer Glen

2009-11-05T09:14:35-06:00

Take time to review last night's back and forth between GOP gubernatorial candidates at the Joliet and Lockport Tea Party's forum in Homer Glen. These guys are beginning to know each other enough to begin some punches that stirred the audience and reaction from punchees. Last night's forum was the most lively yet.

Proft and Andrzejewski took the first punches at incumbents and then each other, and by the end of the evening, they all began beating on Andy McKenna, who, organizers said, agreed to come Monday, then backed out again late yesterday. The organizers had a tough question prepared for McKenna, so they asked his fellow candidates his question in his absence. McKenna had better be ready for this gangup tonight at his first forum appearance as a candidate. The others are riled that he's entering late and as IL GOP Chairman, had been briefed on their fund-raising strategy and campaign plans before he declared his own candidacy for governor.

Suffice to say, in IR's humble opinion, last night's debate may have been a game changer. It was that important. The people we spoke to ... randomly.. were looking for non-establishment candidates. As non-party affiliated conservative independents, they 1. didn't like Schillerstrom's pro anti-abortion, anti-conceal and carry answers, 2. didn't like Dillard doing a campaign ad for Barack Obama, and 3. didn't have much to say about Bill Brady one way or another. Most we talked to said they were either for Proft or Andrzejewski -- but had some problems with both. They don't quite trust Proft yet and Andrzejewski seems a little naive, they said.

Tonight's GOP debate is likely to be a little more tame and less confrontive, but McKenna had better have his right guard up. As for Jim Ryan, there's a mystery as to how he'll be received.

We're updating the Homer Glen info as we speak and will provide more info as we can today ...

Obamacare Vote Saturday?

2009-11-05T08:15:00-06:00

by Sam Pierce

It would appear that Shrieker of the House Pelosi, or "She Who Must Not Blink", is confident she can twist enough arms to get enough votes for her monstrous health care bill this Saturday. Will "Big Brother" Barry send Rahm to the Capitol building deliver a few threats over the next two days? How a bout a dead fish wrapped in one of his tutus?

H.R. 3962 may pass the House after a Saturday evening vote, and one must wonder if the trial lawyers get their kiss (H/T Teri O'Brien) that same evening or do they wait until after Obama is re-elected (Heaven forbid) and has begun a second term? I suppose those of us who wanted the high costs due to medical malpractice lawsuits addressed (in other words, reasonable people) can view this as a means of addressing the issue. Of course this means of address provides states with an incentive to ensure that they do not cap attorney fees or awards.

According to CQ Politics abortion funding is a potential sticking point with some of the Democrats (those who oppose the butchering of the innocent):

The House vote is expected at 6 p.m. Saturday. The Rules Committee would have to meet 24 hours before the debate to prepare the bill for floor action, but Slaughter declined to say exactly when Rules would meet.

By allowing the Ellsworth language, House Democratic leaders hope to address the reluctance of anti-abortion Democrats to vote for the health bill.

Some of those lawmakers say they remain dissatisfied with the language, however.

Bart Stupak , D-Mich., may still oppose the Ellsworth language, potentially keeping the bill from passing. Stupak wants to bar any federally subsidized insurance plan from covering abortions, including any public plan set up to compete with private insurers.

Rep. Stupak might risk being screamed at as a "single-issue zealot" if he were an Illinois Republican whose stomach turned at the idea of a Senator Mark Kirk. Fortunately for him, he is not. Of course his respect for innocent life (unlike Mark Kirk) and insistence that money not be seized from the taxpayer to pay for the taking of an innocent child's life is inconvenient for the "ardent Catholic" Pelosi and irritating to the reprehensible abortion advocate Nancy Keenan. The Washington Obamost reports, "Some Democrats' concern over abortion may imperil health bill":

"I will continue whipping my colleagues to oppose bringing the bill to the floor for a vote until a clean vote against public funding for abortion is allowed," Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said Monday in a statement. He said last week that 40 Democrats could vote with him to oppose the legislation -- enough to derail the bill.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, cast Stupak as "attempting to ban abortion coverage in the private insurance market."

The abortion dispute centers both on federal subsidies that would be provided for people who cannot afford health-care coverage themselves and the much-debated government insurance alternative, which is included in the House version of the bill but is still being debated in the Senate. Under a 1976 law, federal funds are generally barred from being used for abortions, except in cases of rape or incest or to ensure the life of the mother.

NARAL Nancy is concerned taxpayers won't be killing babies so she needs to lobby for the sake of "women's health". Of course if she were actually concerned about "women's health", she would be lobbying against the government takeover of healthcare (or the polling approved "health insurance reform") in this nation of 300 million people! Instead she shows no mercy or remorse in her assault on innocent little boys and psst, Nancy, girls:

In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) signed by 183 lawmakers who Stupak helped organize, a group of mainly Republicans wrote: "The U.S. government should not be in the business of promoting abortion as health care. Real health care is about saving and nurturing life, not about taking life."

Keenan said a provision such as Stupak's would cut abortion coverage from the health plans of women if their employers decided to enroll in the health-care exchange. But after spending many of the past several days on Capitol Hill working on the bill, she said she wasn't sure if there are enough House votes to pass it with the current abortion language in it.

It might be refreshing if the Statists would speak honestly regarding their motivation (some might actually be well intentioned in supporting this bill, but those are the fools) of power and control. Constitution be damned! This is the age of Obama, after all. Take the labor of the taxpayer and redistribute its fruit to the zero-liability voter (H/T Andrew Wilkow).

I do hope those who are able rise to the occasion and join the wonderful Congresswoman Michele Bachmann along with Mark Levin and others on the steps of the Capitol Thursday (11/5/09) at noon Eastern to show that we will not take this intrusion lightly. The mistakes of 2008 have already proven costly in both dollars and liberty! I only hope we can apply a tourniquet to the wound Barack Obama and his leftist majorities in Congress are deepening.

Cross-posted from "The Immoderate Blog"

You Have to Earn Respect

2009-11-05T08:01:09-06:00

By John Brown's Ghost

To start off, I don't know this judge. I don't know anything about him. He could be a terrific judge. However, this action seems pretty pretentious. Yes, the idiot criminal deserves to be in jail, albeit for his crimes. However, does giving a judge "the bird" REALLY qualify someone for 6 months in jail?? If the judge was just using the finger flipping as an excuse to give this treasure of society another 6 months in jail - fine, I might applaud him. However, it doesn't at least appear that this is the case.

In thinking about the ramifications of this, I thought "How much does it cost to house an inmate for a year?" There are a lot of answers, but I saw numbers on-line that ranged from $17,000/year in Kentucky, to $22,000/year in Wisconsin and Florida to $47,000/year in California. Just to make the math easy, let's say it cost $20,000/year. Because the alleged criminal gave a one-fingered salute to the judge, and his feelings were oh so terribly hurt, the tax payers will be left with a bill for an additional $10,000. Perhaps a better option might have been for the judge to order the criminal to buy him a box of bon-bons so he could salve his hurt feelings.

I know, I know, we have to have members of society be respectful of authority figures and behave nicely. I'm sure if the same judge heard that a criminal flipped off a police officer, the criminal would get an extra 3-4 months in the slammer, right? What about those war protesters that yell "baby-killer" to our soldiers. Now that has to be a lot worse than displaying a singular digit, right? I'm sure the judge would give the anti-war protesters at least 9 months for that.

I think what bothers me the most about this story is that criminals get off all the time with probation for truly serious matters. In this case, a criminal gets 6 months in jail for offending a judge. I guess I'm not seeing the logic. You can try and seduce a child and get probation, but if you offend a judge, whamo- straight to jail.

Not all, but some judges believe that they are the epitome of righteousness. The supreme rulers of all that is wise and learned. "Why, doesn't that criminal know who I am? How dare he flip me off."

Judges have such wisdom, as demonstrated in this case, or by this case. How about the acts of this judge?

Sometimes judges make decisions that have no rational underpinnings to the financial and social realities that become of their decisions. Years ago, a judge, a SINGLE JUDGE, decided that taxpayers in the Kansas City Missouri school district had to cough up millions of dollars to rectify inequalities in the school system. What was the result? Practically nothing.

Judges are not gods. Why they believe that they deserve more respect than police officers, military personnel or even the common man, befuddles me.

It goes back to an old joke:

Q: What do you call an attorney with an IQ of 80?

A: Your Honor

URF LIFT Principles

2009-11-05T07:30:00-06:00

In 2007 the United Republican Fund developed the LIFT principles for Illinois. Since then, the URF has encouraged candidates, fellow conservatives, and Republicans to use these principles as a basis for policy development, communication, and campaigning. We congratulate Eric Wallace for his use of these principles in his recent campaign for U.S. Senate. The URF LIFT principles are as follows:

LIMITED GOVERNMENT
Illinoisans deserve a government that is fiscally responsible. Waste, fraud and duplication in government must be eliminated. Public debt, except for infrastructure, should be avoided. Government budgets should fit within existing revenues. Spending reductions, not tax increases, are the preferred solutions to revenue shortfalls. + Taxation should be restricted to the most minimal levels, and the burden of taxation should be spread as equally as possible among Illinois citizens. Taxation should never be employed for the purposes of redistributing wealth or restricting productivity, economic growth, or savings. + Government policy should encourage self-sufficiency and promote the work ethic among Illinoisans. Public funds should not be used to support persons who are capable, albeit unwilling, to provide for their own needs. Government welfare programs should strive to elevate the dignity of the individual, strengthen families, and encourage self-sufficiency.

INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY
Laws restrict the free exercise of liberty and property. Consequently, no law should be passed unless there is a compelling reason to do so. The proponents of any law should have the burden of proof that passage is necessary. + The rights of an individual should include, but not be limited to, those rights guaranteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States. They should also include those God-given rights of freedom, not specified in any written document, which necessarily exist in a nation where the individual is more important than the state. Conversely, these rights should not negate the responsibility of the individual's obligation to conduct himself as a responsible and productive member of society. + All citizens are entitled to security of their persons and property. Government's primary task is the maintenance of law and order to ensure these rights are protected. Accordingly, the system of justice must afford each person access to competent representation and a level playing field to ensure the imperatives of justice can be met.

FREE ENTERPRISE
Through free markets, individuals and groups form relationships and exercise self-government. The state should only intervene to establish minimum health and safety standards, and encourage competition. When the government does choose to use its power to regulate free people, it should be exceedingly cautious to use the least burdensome method possible. + Individuals have the right to choose in free market systems, and are vested with the responsibility to inform themselves and make choices that best suit their needs. While government should actively enforce fraud statutes, it should not attempt to protect the public from what it perceives as poor choices by eliminating those possibilities from the market. + Private property is the cornerstone of a free nation. Therefore, communal needs should override private property rights only in the most convincing circumstances - not merely for the sake of convenience. In those instances when a compelling need does exist, property owners should be justly compensated for their loss.

TRADITIONAL VALUES
Representative democracy cannot proceed or survive simply by inertia; instead it must be fed by ethical people who are engaged in the political process and who share the values necessary for such a government to thrive. + Therefore, traditional American values must be preserved and impressed upon each generation. Duty, honor and love of country are some of those values. Equally important are justice, equality before the law, hard work, humility, charity, integrity, and courage. + The family is the foundation of society. Consequently, the state should encourage its formation and interfere in its function as little as possible. Family inter-dependency is essential for long-term national stability. Hence marriage is intended to be a permanent relationship between one man and one woman, and the basis for strong families. + Human life is sacred and inviolable from conception to natural death. Protection for the unborn and elderly, and compassion for the sick and infirm, are essential elements of all healthy societies.

Eleven More Cult of Obama Videos for Kids in School

2009-11-05T03:57:05-06:00

By Mark Rhoads

The strange cult of Barack Obama worship continues to surface. One or two videos of kids in schools singing praises for Obama could be dismissed as bizarre, but these videos are becoming an epidemic. Once exposed, schools and teachers are removing the videos from You Tube as fast as bloggers can find them. CLICK HERE to see some of the videos still up with transcripts.

Here is one partial Transcript:

Barack Obama there is none higher
Other politicians should call me sire
To burn my kingdom you must use fire
I create change till I retire!

Democratic Party come correct
Our cuts are on time our rhymes connect
Got the right to vote and will elect
Others can’t feel us but give us respect

Now I walked through crowds, shook many hands
Spent my time saying YES WE CAN!
I stood on many stages, held many mics
Took airplane flights at great heights
PA and Jersey, I won that fight

Chicago Illinois was so hype
Moving so strong
Biden joined the fight
Now we are a team and we ignite!

Now I crash through walls,
Cut through floors,
Burst through ceilings
Knock down doors.

He is George
And I’m Turan
We’re never far behind
In class we shine
For every living person
With dreams and plans

Tea Party Gubernatorial Forum -- Homer Glen, IL

2009-11-04T23:09:06-06:00

Tea Party Gubernatorial Forum -- Home Glen>

Make Pelosi live under the same law she demands for everyone else

2009-11-04T22:18:31-06:00

By Mark Rhoads

What is so unfair about making Congress live under the same laws it passes for the rest of America? Now comes the famous, or infamous as you like, Rep. Joe ("You lie") Wilson to offer a simple amendment to Nancy Pelosi's now 2,000 page health care bill. The Wilson amendment only changes ONE WORD in the entire bill and that is changing the word "may" to "must." The current House health care legislation states that members of Congress "may enroll" in the public plan. Wilson wants that changed to "must enroll." Wilson is trying the political quivalent of someone offering a poison pill in a corporate takeover or merger negotiation. Of course Pelosi cannot afford to allow this amendment to be voted up or down on the floor. Few members of Congress in their right minds (a contradiction?) will want to mandate themselves and their families to join the crazy public option they are trying to force on all other citizens.

But in the Senate, it will not be so easy to avoid an up or down roll call vote on the amendment. Then we will see which Democrats in Congress are willing to put their own families under the same plan the want to mandate for everyone else. After a gain of two seats in elections yesterday, Pelosi can afford to lose 41 Blue Dogs and others on a roll call but Harry Reid cannot afford to lose any vote he has which is one reason there will not be a vote in the Senate until 2010 but that will not help much and the House Democrats will be left holding the bag. House members such as Rep.Bill Lipinski, a Roman Catholic who lives in Western Springs and who will be asked to vote to make the government repeal the Hyde Amendment and pay for abortions again, will have to take the heat from suburban voters for nothing since the Senate will find a way to let their procedures kill the bill after the delay to early 2010 by which time a new campaign season will start.

Dodge Comptroller Favorite in Milton Township Straw Poll

2009-11-04T15:46:25-06:00

from the Dodge for Comptroller campaign

Jim Dodge, Republican candidate for Illinois Comptroller, edged out his opponents in a straw poll by the Milton Township Republican Organization in DuPage County garnering the largest share of the vote over his primary opponents.

“I am very grateful for the support from this established and highly respected Republican organization,” Dodge said. “It is another validation that Illinois Republicans want a clean break with the politics of the past.”

A vice president of a global marketing information company, Dodge holds an MBA with concentrations in finance and economics from the University of Chicago. In addition to serving as a Metra board member since 2004, he recently began his sixth term as an elected official in Orland Park. More information is available at jimdodge2010.com.

Springfield's Sham Reforms Show its Time for Citizens to Take Charge

2009-11-04T14:01:18-06:00

by John Bambenek

These days it seems that every politician is saying they are a reformer and that they're the outsider. Their actions, however, show that in most cases this is a sham. Two recent actions by the General Assembly show "faux reform" that makes the situation in Springfield worse, not better.

The first is the recall amendment, which voters should roundly reject next November. It ONLY can be used against the Governor and then ONLY if 10 state representatives from BOTH parties and 5 state senators from BOTH parties allow the voters to gather signatures to make a recall election happen. They need to collect 15% of the voters signatures in the last election. To put it another way, it takes 10,000 signatures to get into office. It takes 1,000,000 signatures to get out. And that's BEFORE the people can vote. It's the appearance of reform, not real reform.

The second is the campaign contribution caps for everyone except party bosses and legislative leaders in general elections. No matter what you think about caps, if we have them they should be applied equally. If they are not, that simply shifts power. In this case, legislative leaders and unaccountable party bosses will control the purse strings of campaign cash. It further centralizes power and makes the situation worse, not better.

That is why citizens need to take charge and bring real reform to Springfield. The Legislature simply will not advance real reform. They only want to pacify voters long enough to survive the 2010 elections. The is why the Putback Amendment was conceived.

The Putback Amendment is a true non-partisan grassroots effort. If 500,000 voters sign the petition, it will be on the ballot in 2010. If 60% of the voters ratify it, it becomes part of the constitution. Politicians cannot change, stop or modify the amendment. Our constitution allows voters to modify the legislative article of the state constitution because the legislature would be "least likely to reform itself". Recent actions only confirm this.

The Putback Amendment strongly decentralizes power and allows independent legislators to move an agenda without having to kiss the ring of a legislative leader. It establishes term limits and a fully open and transparent process for drawing legislative maps. It requires all legislation to be online for 7 days before its final vote. It makes for competitive elections by equalizing ballot access and ending the kicking candidates off the ballot game that only limits voter choice. It returns to three-member districts with bullet voting in a unicameral legisature to empower political minorities and strong independent leaders in the legislature.

The Putback Amendment has been endorsed by Paul Jacobs, FairVote, Free and Equal Elections, Mothers on a Mission to Stop Violence, Main Street Campaigns, Adam Andrzejewski, Illinois Citizens Coalition and the Republican Liberty Caucus of Illinois.

Join me this November 7th at a Rally for Reform in locations across the state of Illinois where you can go to sign the amendment. Together, we can put the citizens back in charge and bring real reform to Springfield.

Newsbuster Update

2009-11-04T13:59:43-06:00

Learning Lessons Right and Wrong from NY-23

2009-11-04T09:31:44-06:00

by John F. Di Leo

Good pollsters will look at the November results from NY-23 and come to the logical conclusion that Republicans won the votes but lost the seat, as the Democratic party got 49% of the vote, while the two Republicans split the 51% of Republican votes.

The pundits of the state-controlled media (Rush's term for the once-major networks, the liberal big city newspapers, etc.) will, as usual, spin these results to dampen the powerful messages sent by voters in New Jersey and Virginia. While understandable -- people with the power to spin will do so if they can get away with it -- such interpretations will be wrong.

Virginia's and New Jersey's November elections were normally scheduled general elections with normal voter turnout, after each had normal primary cycles. Their results are instructive -- they clearly tell us the reaction of the citizenry to the overswung pendulum of 2006 and 2008. Study them, learn from them, and if you're a Democrat, fear them.

NY-23 was a special congressional election. Unlike Illinois, where special congressional elections have a primary cycle first (albeit an abbreviated one), the Democrat and Republican party voters didn't have a chance to choose their nominees in New York. They rely on their party chairmen to select a nominee appropriate to the party and the district.

The Democratic party leaders of NY-23 used their heads, and selected a semi-reasonable moderate Democrat as their nominee. Not a real moderate, of course -- Owens is certainly a liberal -- but not a fire-breathing socialist guaranteed to turn off the voters of a Republican district, so he looks moderate for a Democrat. A reasonably wise choice on the part of the Democrat party leaders.

By contrast, the Republican party leaders of NY-23 blew it. They selected a fire-breathing socialist state assemblyman, guaranteed to turn off the voters of this solid one-hundred year Republican district. An amazingly unwise choice on the part of the Republican party leaders.

The Conservative party leaders of New York therefore found it necessary to get involved. They didn't plan on it -- they had not needed to run a candidate in that district before -- but when the Republican party decided to virtually give up the seat by nominating a liberal, one classified as to the left of half the Democrats in the state house in objective rankings. the Conservative party had no choice.

The Republicans had probably given up the seat by nominating an unelectable candidate, so the Conservatives ran their own mainstream conservative Republican, Doug Hoffman. He had an uphill battle all along, of course, knowing that the conservative vote could split, but it was necessitated by the Republican party leadership's nomination of a person better suited for ACORN (endorsed by ACORN, in fact!) than for their party.

And they should have known better. We partisans like to think that we can trust our party leaders to at least understand what we believe in, to agree with their membership on the basic issues... but we often cannot. Too often, as we painfully learned from NY-23, they don't get it at all.

The blame for NY-23's results cannot be laid at the feet of the Conservative party, or Fred Thompson, or Sarah Palin, or the many talk show hosts who endorsed Doug Hoffman, stuck with an uphill battle in a difficult situation. The blame must be assigned where it belongs: to the local Republican leadership who put us in this impossible situation, and to the national Republican leadership who idiotically, and unforgivably, poured nearly a million dollars of Republican donors' money into the Dede Scozzafava campaign after the real Republicans in the district had left to join Hoffman.

The national GOP could have stayed out of it, on the dual grounds that they couldn't spend their national donors' money on a RINO, and that, as Republicans, they also couldn't spend that money against the RINO on a third party. If the national party had just used these good reasons not to put any money in the race, Hoffman might well have eaked out a win last night. Those weeks of wrongheaded national GOP support for Scozzafava propped her up just enough to get her those few thousand votes that should have gone to Hoffman, costing our party this important seat.

The left will also claim that it was Hoffman's campaign approach that cost him the election -- that he was the wrong kind of candidate -- too conservative on social issues at a time when people don't care about them. Again, wrong in every way.

Election after election, and poll after poll, confirm that the American people (except for a few wacko lefty urban pockets here and there) are conservative on virtually all the social issues. Supporting pro-abortion, pro-gay-marriage, pro-alternate-lifestyles candidates is wrong for the party and wrong for the country.

Rather, the American public, particularly the independent vote, tends to gauge candidates by checking whether they have their priorities right. They want candidates who are right on every issue, but who talk about things in the same order, and in the same proportions, in which the offices they seek will encounter those issues.

In the eyes of the average voter, in the average legislative session, the abortion issue affects a few votes per year. The handgun rights issue affects a few votes per year. The "special privileges for gays" issue affects maybe one or two votes per year. By contrast, general taxation-and-spending issues affect hundreds of legislative votes every session.

The public therefore wants their candidates to be right on all the issues -- and hopefully be eloquent and effective on all the issues as well -- but not to talk about these issues disproportionately. Candidates should be right on social issues, right on foreign policy, and firm on both... but should focus their spoken words on the tax-and-spend issues that will encapsulate 99% of their lives if we elect them.

Candidates who give every speech on social issues do scare independents... not from disagreement, but from the view of disproportionality.

Watchers who take the wrong lessons from NY-23 can do great damage to both the party and the country in the future. Watchers who take the right lessons -- don't nominate a liberal, don't prop up someone anathema to the voters, always be right on both the issues and the proportionate treatment of those issues -- will be poised for success in 2010 and beyond.

John F. Di Leo is a Chicago-based Customs broker and international trade compliance trainer. A former county chairman of the Milwaukee GOP, he has been a recovering politician for twelve years and five months.

Obama administration provides false info on stimulus data for Illinois

2009-11-04T09:25:15-06:00

The Chicago Tribune is reporting that "more than $4.7 million in federal stimulus aid so far has been funneled to schools in North Chicago, and state and federal officials say that money has saved the jobs of 473 teachers."

Only one problem - according to Lauri Hakanen, superintendent of North Chicago Community Unit Schools District 187...the district employs only 290 teachers.

Notes the Trib: the Obama administration is saying that it's directed $1.25 billion to Illinois schools, which has saved or created 14,330 school jobs in the state. However, according to a Tribune analysis of district-by-district stimulus spending and other state data, "those statistics...appear riddled with anomalies that raise questions about their validity." More here.

Halvorson to vote for health care bill

2009-11-04T09:12:50-06:00

Democrat U.S. Rep. Debbie Halvorson said Tuesday that she plans to support the health care bill fashioned by the House this week, which includes a "public" option. Debbie told the SouthTown Star that the government-run system "would reduce the deficit by roughly $30 billion over the next 10 years".

The House is expected to vote on the bill by this weekend.

Ryan announces

2009-11-04T08:56:09-06:00

Yesterday in Springfield, former Attorney General Jim Ryan announced his intentions to be the seventh Republican candidate for governor in the February 2, 2010 primary. We found his announcement speech on his website, and thought you might like to read where he's headed.

Following is the text of Jim Ryan’s speech announcing his candidacy for Illinois Governor — as prepared for delivery, November 3, 2009:

Good afternoon.

I’m here today with my wife, Marie and our family to announce my candidacy for Governor.

I chose Springfield to begin my campaign because this is where our elected representatives gather from every part of the state to collectively do the people’s business.

I also chose the capitol for this announcement because representative government here is broken.

In a representative democracy power is held by the people. It is exercised indirectly on their behalf through their elected representatives.

They are expected to make decisions in our best interests. The uncomfortable truth is that state government in Illinois has failed us despite the efforts of a lot of good men and women. Decisions have too often been made not in the public interest, but despite it.

We are all familiar with the famous quote by Lord Acton, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” With one former governor in prison, and his successor under criminal indictment, it is no wonder we have lost faith in the system.

The social contract in Illinois has been breached:

We did not consent to an eleven billion dollar budget deficit
We did not consent to 80 billion dollars in unfunded pension obligations.
We did not consent to bringing this state to the brink of bankruptcy.
And we certainly did not consent to paying a corruption tax.

Representative government in Illinois is broken!

Although there is plenty of blame to go around, there is no denying that our state’s fiscal condition has worsened under nearly eight years of Democratic control.

Reckless spending,
Fiscal mismanagement,
Systemic corruption,
A hostile business climate that has cost us jobs and damaged our economy
And a lack of authentic leadership all threaten our state’s future.

The Democratic response to the fiscal, economic, and ethical challenges facing Illinois is:

to propose higher taxes,
increased spending and
to adopt an anemic version of real ethics and campaign finance reform.

The former would further damage Illinois’ economy in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression and the latter will do little to restore trust in the political process.

I decided to run for Governor because, as a father and grandfather, I am deeply distressed about the direction of our state.

I believe in the importance of public service and the positive role government can play in improving the lives of people.

I believe that government does not have to be the problem, it can be part of the solution.

The soul of our state is its people – good people who look to state government to make their lives a little better, not a lot worse.

We should never forget that the budget crisis and bad decisions made for short-term partisan gain have real world consequences for people. Children, families and taxpayers deserve better.

During the course of my campaign, I will outline the details of my agenda for Illinois. Right now, I want to tell you the voters, about the principles that will drive it.

First — If elected governor, I will hold myself to the highest ethical standards and I will demand unyielding integrity on the part of my staff and every member of my administration.

Second — Under my administration, government will be accountable, responsive and transparent in its operations, including appointments, hiring, contracting and financial reporting.

Third — My administration, will honor government’s fiduciary responsibilities to you, the taxpayers, by eliminating waste, inefficiencies, duplication and unnecessary programs and spending. I will create an Advisory Council on Efficient Government, comprised of business leaders, academics and financial experts to conduct a top to bottom review of all state spending.

Fourth — I will appoint a Council of Economic Advisors. I will bring together economists, university researchers, economic forecasters, business, and labor leaders to make policy recommendations that will make our state more productive and competitive.

Fifth — I will not raise taxes. In a recession, raising taxes would do irreparable damage to our state’s economy. Instead I will cut spending and work to reform pensions, medicaid, and employee and retiree healthcare benefits. The state has consistently spent more money each year than it receives in revenue. To stop the fiscal bleeding before it’s too late, we must impose fiscal discipline and make tough decisions. Short term and creative long-term strategies are necessary to avoid fiscal implosion. When I campaigned for governor in 2002, I proposed an expenditure limit that would have capped spending at inflation and population growth. If that had been accomplished, Illinois would have saved cumulatively 13.7 billion dollars, according to the Illinois Policy Institute. I propose this expenditure limitation again.

Sixth — Fixing the budget and real ethics and campaign finance reform are means to an end, not an end in themselves. Providing honest leadership and living within our means is the least we should expect from our government. Yet these nagging issues have become monumental obstacles to achieving our state’s promise.

To transform our state from what it is to what it ought to be, will require strong leadership and collective action by good citizens. No one individual can change the course we are currently on. So today I call on the citizens of Illinois to join me in this campaign.

Make it your campaign,
Make it your cause,
Make it your fight.

Let’s work together to bring real change to Illinois.

While we may not always agree on how to get where we want to go, and success will always require reasonable compromises, I know we can succeed because we share the same values and aspirations:

To provide every child in Illinois with a quality education
To work to eliminate poverty and inequality, by closing the achievement gap between white and minority students.
To keep all of our children safe and healthy. How can we be satisfied with a “D” on our state’s mental health report card?
How many of our children must be neglected, abused or die from senseless gang violence before we say enough is enough! We can do better.

In the seven years I’ve been away from government and politics, I’ve had more time to reflect on what’s truly important in life. What matters to me most in life are the people standing behind me.

If elected, I offer you my experience as a proven and successful statewide officeholder and as a human being whose good and bad experiences have tempered my outlook and sharpened my focus.

In the words of Marion Wright Edelman, founder of the Children’s Defense Fund and recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom: “If we don’t stand up for children then we don’t stand for much.”

As Governor I will be a strong advocate for our state’s children, the poor, the disabled and the mentally ill. I will not forget the marginalized in our state. Public policy in my administration will be driven by respect for life and human dignity.

But for us to do these things, we need to get our fiscal house in order.

Lincoln once said, “stand with anybody that stands right, stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong.” That timeless sentiment reflects my philosophy of government, politics and life.

If I am fortunate enough to be your next governor, I will fight for what’s right.

Starting today, let’s fight together. Let’s honor the wise words of Abraham Lincoln and make this great state a place our children are proud of.

Thank you and God Bless.

Congratulations to Bob McDonnell; An Analysis of His Win

2009-11-04T07:54:06-06:00

H/T IL GOP Chairman Pat Brady points out to us an analysis of McDonnell's win in Virginia published this am by Glen Bolger. Bolger was Bob McDonnell’s pollster for both his Attorney General’s race and his Gubernatorial race.

Democrat claims that Bob McDonnell’s victory in Virginia is just a Republican electorate reasserting itself and has nothing to do with Barack Obama are simply trying to put lipstick on a pig.

Saying Virginia is a Republican state is like saying the Washington Redskins are a well-run organization. It was once true, but not any more. Democrats control a majority of congressional seats, state Senate seats, both U.S. Senate seats, and had won the previous two Governor’s races. Others say Virginia is a purple state, but Obama won it by seven points. Given the recent Democrat string of victories, the only thing purple about Virginia lately is the discolored bruises Republicans have from their beatings from the electorate.

I’ve been asked if Bob’s strong showing in the polls leading into his overwhelming Election Day victory is because of Bob McDonnell’s issue-based campaign, the vacuous and negative campaign of Creigh Deeds, or voter reaction to Barack Obama’s expansion of government. The answer is yes – it is all three.

The McDonnell strategy team, led by campaign manager Phil Cox, and complemented by chairman Ed Gillespie, media consultant Doug McAuliffe, strategist Tim Phillips, and your writer as the pollster, set out early to establish Bob as different than Republicans have been in the past few elections – strong on issues that matter most to people.

Our goal back in last winter/spring was to tie on the top issue of jobs/economy, stay close on transportation and education, and win on tax/spending. Ultimately, Bob would end up the campaign with double digit advantages on four of those five issues, and would be tied on education.

Policy has always been important to Bob McDonnell, and his leadership on this segment of the campaign set the tone for the team. Bob had a great record as Attorney General – his proposals both helped people and garnered bi-partisan support, which made the Deeds message about Bob being a rabid right-winger not ring true to voters.

The campaign organized issue teams, which put together a number of significant policy options for Bob to put together his issue priorities, which we then tested with in-depth polling. The polling did NOT determine the policy ideas, but did elevate some as the ones to highlight to the electorate. Doug McAuliffe coined the phrase: “Bob’s for jobs” which became the central theme of the issue campaign.

Thus, the McDonnell campaign dominated the issue agenda in the campaign. Creigh Deeds, whose last ad ironically talked about substance over style, hardly ever talked about issues during the campaign. His was a campaign devoid of reasons why he should be governor, whereas the McDonnell campaign – from the candidate to the ads to the website – clearly communicated that Bob had a plan.

One of the most important ads we ran was relatively early in the campaign, and only ran in downstate markets (it was before we were advertising in the DC DMA). It was Bob to camera talking about his energy plan, which included green jobs. It defined Bob as a forward-looking leader, who is for all of the above – oil, coal, solar, wind – a blend of both traditional and alternative energy.

Deeds was perceived as running the more negative campaign by a 54%-24% difference. That sized differential is the kiss of death in politics. At the end of the campaign, Deeds lashed out at the negative nature of the McDonnell campaign, but his complaints fell on deaf ears for several reasons.

First and foremost, when we did define Deeds, it was on issue-based contrast. Voters generally do not think issue differences – especially on the key issues of jobs, spending and taxes – are negative. Instead they see those contrasts as legitimate areas for battling in a campaign.

Secondly, and just as importantly, Deeds never defined himself. On paper, Deeds was our toughest opponent of the three Democrats running in the primary. He had a great personal story to tell, and he was the more natural heir to Tim Kaine/Mark Warner than either wildman Terry McAuliffe or liberal Brian Moran.

However, rather than tell his story, Deeds followed the direction of his patron, the Washington Post, and jumped all ad nauseum on the thesis that Bob McDonnell wrote 20 years ago. It was an intellectually lazy way to run a campaign. Rather than first define Deeds, they just decided to hit Bob as a right-wing woman hater with ties to Pat Robertson. It turned out to be the equivalent of illegal immigration in 2006 for Republican candidates. Yea – the thesis may have polled as a concern to voters, but it was well-overshadowed by jobs, spending, and taxes – just as illegal immigration was a concern to voters, but not comparable to Iraq and the economy in 2006.

The stunning part of the Deeds failure to define himself manifested itself when we would convene focus groups of swing voters. Before doing the ad testing segment, I (serving as the moderator) would ask participants what the candidates were saying about themselves and about each other. When I asked what Bob McDonnell was saying about himself, swing voters were able to recite our positive messages back to me. However, when I asked what Creigh Deeds was saying about himself, I got blank looks, shrugs, and one word responses: “nothing.” When it was consistently happening in focus groups, it was pretty clear that Deeds had failed to make the case to be governor.

Thirdly, a lot of the GOP definitional messaging of Deeds was using Deeds against himself. His bumbling performance in the post-debate press gaggle was legendary. His painful-to-watch equivocation on taxes did tell voters that his instinct in hard times is to raise taxes, but it also told voters he was not to be trusted, because he clearly was uncomfortable answering hard questions.

Barack Obama and Democratic control of Washington also played a role in the McDonnell victory, as Deeds himself ruefully noted in the first of several battles between his campaign and the White House. As we have noted on this blog several times before, voters still like Obama personally, but they have significant doubts about his policies, particularly on fiscal issues and the size of government. Bob found a very receptive response from swing voters when he would talk about policies that hurt jobs, spending, and taxes.

Watching the level of voter concern toward the Obama administration’s policies (you say progressive, I say liberal, let’s call the whole thing off) in an actual campaign underscores the opportunities for Republican candidates in 2010.

Overall, Bob McDonnell’s victory in Virginia breaking the losing streak was a combination of the candidate controlling the issue agenda, our opponent failing to deliver any positive vision for Virginia, and the national political environment tilting slightly Republican for the first time in five years.

UPDATE 1x: Tea Party Gubernatorial Forum in southwest suburbs tonight

2009-11-04T07:25:35-06:00

UPDATE 1x: Kraulidis' are telling us they're now at 611 confirmed for tonight. McKenna has informed them he is not coming ... he was, he wasn't, he was ... now not. Ryan's not showing either. The five candidates coming will all be on the platform together at the same time. A panel of four will ask questions, there will be questions from the Town Hall participants, then another round from the panel.

This looks to be the largest such pre-primary forum in Illinois for the 2010 cycle. More info at www.joliettaxdayteaparty.com.

If you haven't had a chance yet to see the GOP gubernatorial candidates in person, hear how they interact with other candidates on the stump or haven't yet found the one you intend to support February 2, 2010, tonight in Homer Glen, the Joliet and Homer Glen Tax Day Tea Party is preparing for over 500 voters to be on hand. You may want to join them ...

Organizers Tim and Debbie Kraulidis tell us that thus far the five GOP candidates who've been in the race for months -- Businessman Adam Andrzejewski, State Senator Bill Brady, State Senator Kirk Dillard, media spokesman Dan Proft and DuPage County Chairman Bob Schillerstrom -- have confirmed they'll be at the DiNolfo Banquet Center on 159th Street in Homer Glen at 6:00 PM.

Governor Pat Quinn and Comptroller Dan Hynes, Democrats running for governor have declined. The last two Republicans who've filed in the race -- the IL GOP's former chairman Andy McKenna and former Attorney General Jim Ryan -- have not confirmed their intentions to participate.

The Kraulidis' organized the Labor Day Tea Party in New Lenox, where an estimated 10,000 people showed up, mostly concerned about the Obama's administration's policies. New Lenox is located in Congresswoman Debbie Halvorson's 11th CD, and her district's become a target for pickup by Republicans in 2010.

Tonight's forum in Homer Glen will be unique in the number of expected attendees and the fact that the forum sponsors are not affiliated with either Democrats or Republicans. Those attending are likely to be the sought-after Independents, who often are the ones that determine winners in states like Illinois.

The organizer plan to stream line video the proceedings. We'll try to have that available on Illinois Review -- and Illinois Review plans to live blog, as well. All that will be available for our readers starting shortly before 6:00 PM.

The forum will be free, donations will be accepted. Details of location are in Illinois Review's calendar of events. DiNolfo's Banquet Hall, 14447 W. 159th St., Homer Glen, Illinois. It' s just east of I-355 on 159th Street. See you there!

What can IL GOP's gubernatorial candidates take from tonight's wins?

2009-11-03T22:13:53-06:00

You tell us ... what can Illinois GOP gubernatorial candidates learn from New Jersey and Virginia's Republican takeovers? How can a Republican win in 2010? What does this all mean for conservatives/Republicans and liberals/Democrats?

Illinois Review

Rep. Dan Lipinski Caves to Pressure from Pelosi

If you're for life, you should be against Democrats' health care plan

U.S. House health care debate livestreamed

Three Illinoisans among health care undecided, Cantor says

Breaking: Dems cave on pro-life amendment

Joel Pollak's message to Chicago Tea Partiers

Obama Makes Polygamy a 21st Century Issue

Why docs oppose socialized medicine

SEIU objects to home health care worker election

Citizens take issue with Dundee Stop Light Camera program

Schaumburg Township GOP Endorses Dodge

Garrido: Cook County's budget balanced on taxpayers' backs

Higgins launches campaign with GOP leader support

Stop the Abortion Mandate

Unemployment: Proof that Foster’s stimulus has failed

Abortion provisions provide best chance to defeat Pelosi's HR 3962

Manzullo: "Madame Speaker, Tear up this bill!"

Ft Hood tragedy reaches Chicago area

Chicago's Mark Rubin protests Obama's NEA

Schaumburg Township GOP goes for Proft

Rauschenberger on Jobs & the Economy

Health care portability is dumb

Andrzejewski goes after McKenna in new ads

Hughes Says Kirk Appeal to Palin a “Desperate Move”

Pelosi: "We Will have the votes"

Your i-Pelosi app is on its way

Meers blasts Halvorson on healthcare vote

Barack Office Poison

Bill Foster: The Say Nothing Congressman

The touchiest questions asked last night in Homer Glen

GOP gubernatorial forum tonight

John Piper: No, Mr. President

GOP candidates commence punching in Homer Glen

Obamacare Vote Saturday?

You Have to Earn Respect

URF LIFT Principles

Eleven More Cult of Obama Videos for Kids in School

Tea Party Gubernatorial Forum -- Homer Glen, IL

Make Pelosi live under the same law she demands for everyone else

Dodge Comptroller Favorite in Milton Township Straw Poll

Springfield's Sham Reforms Show its Time for Citizens to Take Charge

Newsbuster Update

More videos of Obama indoctrination of school children

Learning Lessons Right and Wrong from NY-23

Obama administration provides false info on stimulus data for Illinois

Halvorson to vote for health care bill

Ryan announces

Congratulations to Bob McDonnell; An Analysis of His Win

UPDATE 1x: Tea Party Gubernatorial Forum in southwest suburbs tonight

What can IL GOP's gubernatorial candidates take from tonight's wins?