The Crusaders Band Led the March in Chants
Photos by Benjamin Weadick

By Nancy Thorner – 

I applaud Mark Weyermuller for his well-written article with photos published on Monday, January 16, at Illinois Review, Where’s Weyermuller Marching with Life Lovers in Chicago.  As Mark related in the first paragraph of his article:

“Thousands of pro-life activists marched Sunday in Chicago to celebrate life and protest abortion in America. The march is held annually at this time of year in response to the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion 44 years on January 22, 1973, commonly called Roe V. Wade.  There are estimates that 55 million babies have been legally killed (some say murdered) in that time.”

The Crusaders for Life Strike a pose

From Marytown to Federal Plaza in Chicago

My participation in the Chicago March for Life started from Marytown at 1600 W. Park Ave. in Libertyville via a bus arranged by The Lake County Right to Life, a sponsor of the March for Life Chicago.  Joining me aboard the 55 seat coach bus were four members of a home school family of eight from Wauconda, Illinois:  Barrett, Benjamin, Elizabeth and Timothy Weadick.  We drove together to board the bus from our church, Lakeview Presbyterian Church PCA in Mundelein. 

On the way to Chicago Benjamin, 17, told me that upon reaching Chicago he and his brother, Barrett, would be leaving me and their younger sister and brother to join up with the Crusaders for life from Volo IL. I was further told by Benjamin that Crusaders would also be there from St. John Cantius in Chicago, and that the St. John Cantius in Chicago and St. Peter’s in Volo together form one group.  

As Mr. Weyermuller had not mentioned the appearance of this noteworthy group of young people in his March for Life Chicago article, I was all ears to learn more about the Crusaders who meet monthly at St. Peter’s in Volo, IL, the group in which Barrett and Benjamin Weadick participate. 

Benjamin Weadick related how before the parade this past Sunday the Crusaders blew up all the balloons and assembled the balloon trees.  They then drove around Chicago in open top buses in their bright yellow outfits and balloons.    

Determined not to miss any of the Crusaders’ participation in the parade, I made sure I was near the front of the march after the rally ended with the two younger Weadick children.  I wasn’t disappointed and observed:

  • A band leading chants for the people at the rally.
  • Teams of people holding balloon lines above crowds.
  • Crusaders cheering on the other marchers. 

Crusaders preparing the Balloons  The Crusaders wore the signiture brght yellow_

About the Crusaders

I later learned more about the Crusaders, an amazing group of young people, from Rose Lareau, age 18, who serves as secretary of the Crusaders.  Rose explained how the Volo crusaders and the Saint John Cantius crusaders are one in the same.  “We’re all one large group.  We just have our meeting at Volo and at Cantius because Volo is a far drive for many.” 

As related by Rose: 

The Crusaders have a meeting once a month to talk about any up-coming events that might interest the group.  Usually the meeting also includes a pro-life speaker.  Crusaders believe that every child deserves to live no matter how they were conceived and no matter if they have a possibility of being handy capped or with any other disorder. 

Yellow is worn as a sign of joy.  Yellow is also worn because of the Vatican flag.  The gold on the Vatican flag represents spiritual power which all Crusaders have within themselves.  This spiritual power leads Crusaders to cheer, pray, and even jump around, as they display the joy and love they have for everyone, even the pro-choicers. 

Crusaders don’t hate pro-choice individuals; no one should hate them.  We should instead feel sorry for them and pray that their hearts will be changed and see the wrong in abortion.  Every single person that God has ever made should have the chance to live. No one should have any say over a tiny child’s life. It’s all God’s choice, and He has a plan for every single person.

Account by Rose of Crusader participation

The morning of the Chicago March, Crusaders went to mass and prayed for the unborn children. After mass the balloons were blown up and tied onto our balloon lines. While most the crusaders were doing that, the drummers were in another room practicing their drumming for all the dancing and cheering.  Once it was 11:30, we all went outside to the double decker buses and trolleys.  We hung signs on the buses and brought out with us our balloons. 

All decked out in yellow, we were ready to drive around Chicago by noon. We left Saint John Cantius and were on our way around the city to cheer and sing and to spread the love and joy the crusaders have for everyone around them.  A few people booed or yelled at us, but we just smiled and kept cheering and waving.  When going under some bridges, it was a very tight squeeze because we had balloons and signs, but we made it through.

Finally arriving at the site of the rally where other pro-lifers were already gathered, there was much cheering and waving because of the felt happiness at seeing everyone.  We unloaded the buses and trolleys, taking our signs and balloons with us.  Attending the rally, we were excited to see alumni crusader, Randy Dziak, up there speaking on the raised platform. 

The rally having ended, we started the march around the city, using all our energy in cheering and jumping around — and in the process losing our voices — while taking lots of pictures and videos of everyone.

At the conclusion of March for Life Chicago, crusaders from Saint John Cantius in Chicago and Saint Peter’s in Volo expressed felt love for their participation in the Chicago March, hoping they brought much joy to everyone as they waved, smiled, and sang.  

Weekend events

160 Crusaders, including the Volo Crusaders, will be taking buses on a three-day march tour and will attend marches in Springfield IL, Jan 27; St. Louis, Missouri, Jan 28; and Indianapolis IN on Jan 29.  Barrett and Benjamin Weadick will be participating.

In past years the Crusaders have attended the DC March for life in a similar fashion by taking buses to the march.

Learn more about the Crusaders by checking out this website.

By Nancy Thorner – 
The Convention of the States (COS) is an Article V Constitutional Convention (Con-Con), supported and funded by well-connected conservatives that refuse to acknowledge the danger their effort could usher onto our republic. 
Radio talk show host, Mark Levin, started pushing for a constitutional convention several years ago, arguing in his book, The Liberty Amendments, that such a convention is the last hope “to reform the federal government from its degenerate, bloated, imperial structure back to its (smaller) republican roots.” 
Unfortunately, many otherwise well-educated and well-meaning conservatives have succumbed to Levin’s siren to insist that an Article V convention is the only way to restore the balance of federalism in our Republic.
They evidently are not aware that under Article V of the Constitution, our founding fathers established two methods for future generations to add amendments to the Constitution:  1) either two-thirds of both houses of Congress can propose an amendment, and then three-fourths of the states ratify if they call it. . . or not – the safe method or 2) two-thirds (34) of the states call for a federal constitutional convention, and then three-fourths of the states ratify whatever amendments are proposed by the convention. This method must be avoided at all costs.  It could lead to a runaway convention in which our original Constitution would be scrapped and a new Constitution would be substituted. 
Consider also a big financier of global fascism, George Soros. Soros is pumping millions of dollars into the same Article V campaign that is being promoted by Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Allen West, and other popular conservative spokesmen, as he pushes for a new “progressive” U.S. Constitution by the year 2020.
Conservatives must not be fooled by Con Con activists
Conservatives should shudder at the thought of a convention populated by activists, who endowed with power have a Soros credit card in their pocket and a commitment to “social justice” as their purpose.  Instead, many grassroots, Tea Party, and Christian groups are being infiltrated with progressive ideas by people presenting themselves as Conservatives, Christians, or Patriots.
The enemies of the Constitution are targeting 2017 for passage of the Convention of States (COS).  They are
gearing up to exploit the Republican majorities in state legislatures.
A sign that the Con Con issue is really heating up is that during the past month there has been more than 60 articles reflecting the big push for a “Con Con” (Article V Convention, misnamed a “Convention of States” or “COS”)  In that 69 of the 99 state legislative chambers are now controlled by the Republican Party, the possibility now exists for Con Con to be passed under the guise of “term limits” or a “balanced budget amendment.” 
The good news is that Gun Owners of America just reaffirmed their opposition to Con Con.  (The NRA, having at least one Board member who is a Con Con supporter, won’t speak out against a Con Con.) Without question, one of the first things a Con Con would do is to dilute or repeal the Second Amendment.
Victory over Con Con in Congress
Pro-Constitutional Convention advocates tried to sneak a deceptive provision into the new House Rules on the first day Congress was back in session, Tuesday, January 3, 2017.  The provision — which became the second order of business in the House after the election of Speaker Paul Ryan — was deceptively called the “10 Amendment” rule (regarding the 10th Amendment) and would have purportedly limited a Con Con (Article V Convention) to the amendments initially proposed.  In other words, the proposed Rules change was a pretentious hoax that would have merely created a false appearance of protection.  There is no way to limit the proposed type or number of Con Con amendments during an Article V convention). 
The Rules change proposal failed and was not included in the House Rules for the 2017 session.  You may find the full text here of the newly adopted House Rules
Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) proposed the deceptive 10th Amendment Rule; Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform based in D.C., fully endorsed the Rules change.  In a letter to Congress members dated January 2, 2017, Norquist asked the House to change its Rules in a way that would encourage calling a Con Con or Article V convention.  The first two paragraphs of Norquist’s letter to Congress are noted below (For the full text of Norquist’s letter see here):
January 2, 2017
Dear Republican Members of Congress:
I write to urge you to support an Amendment to the House Rules package proposed by Rep. Kevin Cramer and endorsed by House Rules Chair Pete Sessions that could help restore the Article I Legislative Power of Congress.
The proposed “10th Amendment Rule” would protect the Constitution by recognizing and enforcing the Constitution and especially the 10th Amendment power of states to strictly limit the scope of a Constitutional Amendment process initiated by the states…
Grover Norquist specifically cited Pete Session, House Rules Chair, as being supportive of the “10th Amendment Rule. It just so happens that Rep. Sessions is from Texas, from where much of the pressure for Con Con is coming. Both the governor and lieutenant governor of Texas have built big political war chests and both have been persuaded to support a Con Con, which has already been pre-filed there as the Convention of States legislation.  
Check out Grover P. Norquist’s interactive relationship map to observe observe the scope of his influence and wide spread connections.   This article discusses the coalitions formed by Article V Con-Con groups, and who is holding hands with whom.  
Existing state applications for an Article V Convention and resolutions rescinding prior applications 
Not only is Texas being targeted. Former U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, in an article published recently by multiple newspapers in Wisconsin, demonstrates that Wisconsin is being targeted by the COS project.  He described himself as the “honorary chairman” of the apparently unrelated American Transparency organization, but he’s featured on the Convention of States website. It is interesting that Tom Coburn was part of the Never Trump movement, as many in COS likewise were and might still be.  Posted information about Tom Coburn can be found here.  Read here Andy Schlafly’s rebuttal to Coburn’s editorial. 
Two years ago Section 3(d) of the rules package authorized the Judiciary Committee to maintain a public list of state applications for an Article V convention or resolutions rescinding prior applications.  Before then, there was never any central list of applications.  The status of states can be found here.  
  • Twelve states have been targeted for 2017 by the promoters of a constitutional convention — a “Con Con” or “Convention of States”.
  • Eight states have enacted resolutions for a Convention of States, some using language different from others, but each of the eight states should rescind its call.
  • Seventeen states that have passed a Convention of States should rescind it.  A recent example is the rescission by Delaware of all of its prior resolutions for a Con Con.
  • Here are some efforts at rescission 2017.
Argument against a Convention of States 
Following are some of the best arguments against a Convention of States to defeat the enemies of the Constitution who seek a constitutional convention to change it:
  • *Require a fiscal note, which is billions of dollars in lost entitlements to states
  • Justice Scalia called this proposal for an Article V convention a “horrible idea” at a public event less than a year before he passed away.
  • Phyllis Schlafly completely opposed a Con Con and Convention of States, and all variations on the concept.
  •  Convention of States would be a vote against the conservative Republican national platform, which emphatically rejected this.
  •  Convention of States would enable liberals to repeal the Electoral College.
  •  Convention of States would open the door to repealing the Second Amendment.
  •  Convention of States would facilitate a new constitutional right to taxpayer-funded abortion.
*For example, in which of the targeted states can we compel the legislature to attach a fiscal note for the planned constitutional convention, including delegate expenses and the loss to the state of federal entitlements? Forcing a fiscal note to the tune of the millions or billions of dollars. for the Con Con project would stop it in these targeted Republican states.
Past opposition to Con Con
1) Barry Goldwater said: “[I am] totally opposed [to a Constitutional Convention]…We may wind up with a Constitution so far different from that we have lived under for two hundred years that the Republic might not be able to continue.”
2) Chief Justice Warren Burger said:  “There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey.  After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don’t like its agenda.  The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress “for the sole and express purpose.”
 “The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and pay the penalty.”  Proverbs 27:12 


By Nancy Thorner – 

The future of the Supreme Court was the most important issue for pro-life voters when they voted overwhelmingly for Donald J. Trump as the 45th president of the U.S. on November 9, 2016.  Throughout his campaign, Trump repeated promised he would appoint pro-life justices, in contrast to those pro-abortion Hillary Clinton would select. Based upon the next president’s nominations, the Supreme Court could determine whether 58 million more abortions would take place, or if pre-born children will once again enjoy legal protection. 

In Donald Trump’s op-ed published on November 6, 2016, at USA Today, “Why you should vote for me,” he put the spotlight on the importance of the Supreme Court.  Included was this statement:  “I will restore the constitutional rule of law and nominate Supreme Court justices who will do the same.”

Of merit is Trump’s pro-life pledge made in his third debate with moderator Chris Wallace, noted here, in which Trump tells Wallace that the judges he will appoint will be pro-life.  Trump’s response when Wallace asked Trump specifically if he wanted the court, including the justices Trump would name, to overturn Roe v. Wade:

If we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that is really what will happen. That will happen automatically in my opinion. Because I am putting pro-life justices on the court. I will say this. It will go back to the states and the states will then make a determination.

Trump’s letter addressed to Dear Pro-LIfe Leaders in September of 2016  lays out Trump’s pro-life commitments in an even stronger form addressing these four specific commitments: nominating pro-life justices; signing into law the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act; defending Planned Parenthood; and making the Hyde Amendment permanent. 

Trump to be held accountable to his pro-life pledge

To insure that Trump does live up to his promise to appoint pro-life judges and that he is held accountable if he errs, Andy Schlafly, a director of Eagle Forum and son of its great founder, Phyllis Schlafly, drafted a coalition letter (read here) that was delivered to both President-elect Trump in New York and Vice President-elect Pence in D.C. on Thursday, December 29, 2016. A remarkable 90 groups have signed onto Schlafly’s coalition letter. Paul Caprio of Family Pac Federal and David Smith of the Illinois Family Institute were signers here in Illinois.  More groups continue to ask to join Schlafly’s coalition letter. Additions are welcomed.  

A segment of  Schlafly’s coalition letter was read on Fox News Sunday.  The segment was aired again later on Sunday. This widely-viewed news show likewise used Schlafly’s evaluation of the candidates.  It is is important that you view Schlafly’s chart to garner how he rates the Supreme Court candidates.  

Tony Perkins recently said, “There’s clearly some on the list that are better than others.”  There are, indeed, vast differences among candidates on the list, especially with respect to Trump’s pro-life pledge.  Some of the candidates (including Sykes and Colloton) have even repeatedly taken the pro-abortion side. 

The importance of pro-life judges

Why is it so important that Trump does nominate someone who will fill the vacancy left by Scalia’s death with a candidate in the image of Scalia? 

The biggest prize in the presidential election was always the Supreme Court. President-elect Donald J. Trump is now positioned to make it more conservative, possibly for generations to come.  Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat, vacant since he died in February, will almost certainly be filled by a conservative nominee.  Thus, the Court will be back to its full strength and will again tilt right, as it has for decades, emboldening Chief Justice John Roberts and leaving Kennedy as the ultimate decider.   

Of note is that the man or woman who replaces Scalia on the bench won’t change its balance of power.  Trump’s more lasting impact is dependent on the other eight justices, particularly those old enough to favor retirement or risk dying in office. Liberal justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer are 83 and 78, respectively, and Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative who often sides with liberals on major cases, is 80.  If the president-elect gets to replace any of these three after taking office, the court will shift to the right.

It is therefore important that Trump’s not only upholds his pro-life pledge in making his selection of the first U.S. Supreme Court vacancy to replace Scalia, but that All of Trump’s expected 100+ judicial nominees should be pro-life.  The advisers to the first President Bush thought he could get away with breaking his “no new taxes” pledge, but he couldn’t. It’s a mistake for anyone to recommend, even implicitly, that Trump break his pro-life pledge.

Trump’s list of 21 scrutinized

In a few brief remarks to reporters at Trump Tower in New York City on Wednesday, November 17, Kellyanne Conway said the president-elect will make a Supreme Court pick from the list of 21 candidates he identified during his campaign. What should we make of Trump’s much-publicized list of 21 potential high court nominees 

In an interview with Steve Deace of Conservative Review on December 12, 2016, Andy Schlafly expressed misgivings about the list of 21 potential Supreme Court candidates, raising the question as to why pro-life advocates should be skeptical of Trump’s list. Schlafly, believing that the Supreme Court has more influence than the president does, at least within our country as it currently stands, is in the forefront of making sure that Trump isn’t fooled or mislead into nominating a Supreme Court candidate who cannot be certified as 100% pro-life. 

Regarding the list of 21, Schlafly explains that the 21 names were put forth by the Trump campaign to calm people down and to reassure them he would pick a good, strict constructionist to the Supreme Court.  Some of names did come from The Heritage Foundation, while others came from the Federalist Society.  As a member of the Federalist Society, “Schlafly points out that the Federalist Society is not a pro-life organization.”

This has led to multiple nominees to the Supreme Court who voted with the pro-abortion side.

Even so, pressure is building to deflect Trump away from his pledge by the Federalist Society.  The Institute for Justice just published an article in USA Today here that says nothing about Trump’s pro-life pledge and ends up endorsing the most pro-abortion judge on the list of 21 given to Trump, Diane Sykes.

Trump transition team identifies the eight front runners

A report from Politico on January 1, 2017, did narrow down and identify the eight front runner that the Trump transition team has identified to replace late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.  The profiles are here on the eight possible nominees:  William Pryor, Diane Sykes, Raymond Kethledge, Joan Larsen, Neil Gorsuch, Steven Colloton, Raymond Gruender, and Thomas Hardiman. 

 According to Andy Schlafly, most of the candidates in the Politico report are names we should be worried about.  Of concern to Andy are Diane Sykes, Steve Colloton, Joan Larson, Neil Gorsuch, Raymond Kethledge, and William Pryor, who recently decided to grant homosexual groups access to middle schools as young as sixth grade to establish their “clubs.”  Charles Canady from the Florida Supreme Court most impressed Andy on Trump’s list of 21, yet Canady didn’t even make the narrowed down Politico Trump list which identified the eight front runners.

Organized opposition will attempt to undo Trump’s pro-life pledge

Self-described “pro-life” groups in D.C. must be held more accountable.  Some don’t even say they support Trump’s pro-life pledge, while others are obviously not speaking out as they should be.  Some even tried to talk others out of speaking out.

Yesterday the Democrats in opposition said they would try to block whoever the nominee is.  So we should continue to insist on a pro-life nominee worth fighting for, because it is going to be a fight regardless.  If Trump’s advisers persuade him to break his pro-life pledge, then it will become a disastrous replay of the first President Bush’s breaking of his famous “no new taxes” pledge. 

The media and senators will push for a woman because all four women on the list are not pro-life.  But there are plenty of pro-life women judges having better qualifications than those on the list.  The most-qualified pro-life women should be interviewed for the job.   Judges Jennifer Elrod and Edith Jones, both recommended in Schlafly’s coalition letter, should be interviewed by Trump for the job.

Trump’s pledge to the American people in the final debate and afterwards was to pick only pro-life nominees, not to pick only from the list.  For a job that lasts 30+ years, we should not accept anything less than the best. 

Nancy Thorner is a citizen journalist and conservative activist from Chicago’s northern suburbs.

 Daily Herald, Fence Post letter –  Nancy J. Thorner

posted: 1/4/2017 1:00 AM

Electoral college overrides popular vote

Our Founding Fathers were brilliant, as they foresaw the concentration of population in some states over others as something to account for in the Constitution. The final tally indicated that Trump lost the popular vote by 2.8 million, but he beat Clinton by 3 million votes outside of California and New York, two liberal states where Hillary would have won no matter what.

Should those who live in states with much smaller populations just roll over and say: “We don’t care if the presidential candidates ignore us entirely, as the wisdom and judgment of California and New York are far superior to our own?”

As such, our Founding Fathers established the electoral college as a process, not a place, in our constitution as a compromise between election of the president by a vote in Congress and election of the president by a popular vote of qualified citizens.

Each state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its congressional House delegation plus two more for its senators. Trump won 60 percent of those elections: a decisive majority in the only tally that counted to win the presidency. How then is it that in the wake of an election that was constitutionally decided, there were mobs in the streets, petitions on the internet and email containing death threats, all aimed at trying to dissuade members of the electoral college from doing their sworn duty?

Those who are still whining over Trump’s victory simply don’t understand the difference between a republic and a democracy. The founders understood that a republic could weather all sorts of internal conflicts, but a democracy could easily morph into a mobocracy. If we hadn’t dropped ethics, civics and American history, from the school curriculum, perhaps today we wouldn’t find ourselves hip-deep in arrogant, ignorant, celebrities.

Nancy J. Thorner

Lake Bluff



By Nancy Thorner & Ed Ingold – 

The press is being played like a “phish” by President Obama over the Russian hacking incident. First of all, it is a distraction from the real damage which Democrats inflicted on themselves by using dirty tactics against Hillary’s opponents and disrespecting many of the groups on which they depend for support. If you can’t defend the message, attack the messenger. Secondly, it is not an attack on democracy or the election process, it was an attack on Democrats. If there was an effect on the election, it was the content of these emails, not the fact that they were hacked.

Based on what we know so far, the level of involvement by Russian intelligence is also being exaggerated. This was not an high level, sophisticated attack like the one executed by the U.S. and Israel on Iran’s nuclear separation industry.  Democrat e-mails were hacked by a low level attack called “spear phishing.”

“Phishing” is a term used when a malicious email is delivered asking the receiver to open a document or website which contains malware or asks for personal information. Many times they bear the name of an acquaintance, whose email has been hacked or merely guessed. These are often marked by poor grammar or misspelled words or an unusual topic.

Spear phishing is more sophisticated, but still low level. The email and subsequent websites are disguised to look official, complete with logos and layout like the real site. However they are bogus, and any information the user provides is directed to a spurious server which collects and uses or sells the collected personal information. Usually some sort of software will be planted on the user’s computer that will continue to collect and transmit information to the criminal. A typical ruse is “Your account has been hacked, and will be locked pending your response. Please re-enter your password and personal information.”

Hillary’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, fell victim to a spear phishing attack, which was spread to other members of his contact list. These attacks preceded the November presidential election, specifically after Obama allegedly warned Putin to cease and desist.  AND MEMBERS OF THE DNC KEPT FALLING FOR THE RUSE!

This does not mean Russia had no involvement. In fact many criminal attacks of this sort originate in Russia or Eastern Europe. On the other hand, it does not mean the Russian government played an official role. We simply don’t know without additional facts.

Obama’s evidence supporting the role of Russia and Putin is vague in its analysis of alleged Russian government-sponsored hacking groups that are blamed for breaching several different parts of the Democratic Party during the 2016 elections.  The so-called FBI/DHS report issued on Thursday, December 29, 2016, meant for technology professionals, likewise contains self-contradictory statements.

Of note is that not one of the “17” security agencies (out of three or four) have come forward.  All of the information has come from Obama or staff working at his pleasure.  If true, a factual report would reveal sources and methods, which are more valuable than any information derived by their use.  Instead, the report was criticized by security experts who said it lacked depth and came too late.  Security experts using Twitter criticized the government report as too basic. Jonathan Zdziarski, a highly regarded security researcher, compared the joint action report to a child’s activity center. Tom Killalea, former vice-president of security at Amazon and a Capital One board member, wrote: “Russian attack on DNC similar to so many other attacks in past 15yrs. Big question: Why such poor incident response?”

Meanwhile, on the same day the FBI/DHS report was released (Thursday, December 29, 2016) Barack Obama announced sanctions against Russia for interfering in the 2016 elections in retaliation for Russian efforts to interfere with the US presidential election.  These sanctions included the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from the US.   Putin’s reaction was to be the good guy for now. Rather than respond with similar sanctions against the US, Putin said Friday he would wait until Donald Trump becomes the US president next month before deciding his course of action

“While we reserve the right to take reciprocal measures, we’re not going to downgrade ourselves to the level of irresponsible ‘kitchen’ diplomacy,” Putin said in his statement. (The phrase “kitchen diplomacy” in Russian refers to “quarrelsome” behavior, according to The New York Times.)

With his statement, Putin indicated he plans to ignore Obama’s final diplomatic moves and focus on working with the Trump administration going forward. That puts the US response to the hacking attacks squarely in the hands of the president-elect, who has maintained that there’s no way to know that Russia orchestrated the hacks. Trump’s statements run counter to the US intelligence community’s publicly stated assessment that Russia was indeed behind the attacks.

Wisely Donald Trump is not biting but instead is keeping a low profile regarding the hacking incident.  Keeping silent is Trump’s best option. Trump wants to ‘move on’ but says he will meet with intelligence officials this week for an update. If Trump comes out in support of Obama’s allegations without justification, he will alienate Putin and the Russians and future diplomatic relations. If he denies it, Obama may spring corroborating information, playing Trump as a politically ignorant and dogmatic. 

The only way to prove Russian government involvement and/or intent is by intercepting other means of communication. Obama now faces a dilemma. If he provides proof certain, he will divulge national secrets. If he doesn’t provide this proof, and it is all politics, it will come out in subsequent Congressional investigations. With Trump silent, it is Obama twisting in the wind. On the other hand, John McCain and Lindsay Graham find the bait irresistible.  This is not surprising in the least for those who follow the erratic behavior of both McCain and Graham, who many times promote issues that are not in keeping with what is best for the Republican Party.

Popcorn anyone?

Paul Caprio, Featured Guest at 2016 Christmas Party by Nancy J. Thorner
The 2016 Republican Assembly of Lake County (RALC) Christmas Party was held on Friday, December 16, 2016, on a cold a snowy night at the White Deer Run Golf Club in Vernon Hills.  Dan Sugrue serves as chairman of the organization.  He became chairman after the death of Ray True on October 22, 2013, who founded the RALC and served as its chairman for many years.
Republican Assemblies have been organized on a statewide basis throughout the Nation for more than 70 years.  President Reagan said that the Republican Assembly is “The Conscience of the Republican Party.”  As such Republican Assemblies are dedicated to working within the Republican Party to promote the active participation of its members to endorse, support, and elect principled conservative Republican candidates.
Opening remarks were made by Chairman Dan Sugrue, who commented about the recent election of Donald J. Trump as president.  An Invocation followed, presented by Grant Nobel, after which RALC member Don Castella led the gathering in the Pledge of Allegiance.
After dinner was served and enjoyed, guest speaker Paul Caprio was introduced.  Mr. Caprio serves as Executive Director of Family Pac, founded in 1992 by Paul Caprio and Tom Roeser to honor life, marriage, and fundamental values here in Illinois.   Family Pac Federal was established by Caprio to support conservative candidates, not only here in IL, but across the country. Family Pac Federal is Illinois’s largest conservative pro-family political action arm. Operating nationwide, Family Pac Federal is a resource for young conservatives.  Caprio is the person to go to for young conservatives who are pro-choice, believe in traditional marriage, and in family values.  As Paul Caprio later remarked:  “True conservatism can’t be put in a box.  It’s not just limited government.” In accordance with our Founding Fathers, “foremost is the honoring of fundamental human rights.”
Caprio likewise serves as the Executive Director of One Nation Under God Foundation, organized in 2002 with Co-Chairman Reverend Bob Vanden Bosc, to conduct church voter registration drives and candidate issue information to Christians across Illinois.
Paul Caprio’s remarks
America is the one Country that can beat history and with God’s help. That is exactly what America did on November 8, 2016, when voters elected Donald J. Trump. This nation was given a reprieve, but can we keep it? We must work 365 days a year in our communities.  Even though Republicans have majorities in both the Senate and the House, given the strident voice of the media and groups who are pushing all manner of socially unacceptable behavior, conservatism remains in the minority.  Concern was expressed over how public schools are teaching values that are not compatible with the values children are receiving in their homes.
During the next four years American exceptionalism will be questioned by those on the Left, as Trump strives to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.  Every nation thinks that it is exceptional, but the reason this nation is exceptional is because of a formal document that tells us our rights are inalienable and that they come from God.  Mr. Caprio cautioned his audience not to be afraid to think big in the political arena.
Despite a culture, a federal government, a justice system, and a news media dominated by the Left, a pro-life President committed to less government control of our lives, not more, was elected.  Evangelical Christians and pro-life Catholics were the major reason for the historical political upset.  A record setting 81% of Evangelical Christians voted for Donald Trump and 51% of Catholics.  As such Evangelical Christian turnout was 26% of the total vote this year, an increase from 23% in 2012.
As Paul Caprio remarked, the record vote setting of Christian voters in the battleground states of Ohio, North Carolina and Wisconsin was, in part, due to the work of his  One Nation Under God Foundation, a 501(c) (3) organization.  In that the original purpose of the organization was to conduct church voter registration drives and candidate issue information to Christians here in Illinois, the importance of the 2016 presidential election brought about the expansion of One Nation Under God to states beyond Illinois in 2016.  Caprio’s One Nation Under God organization spent $400,000 in the states of Illinois, Ohio, North Carolina and Wisconsin.   As Caprio explained, 30 to 50 other groups were out there doing the same thing through youtubes, videos, and meeting with pastors.  Brian Barach took charge of the Catholic vote in PA, while Jerry Frazer of United We Stand agreed to handle Florida.
Following is a summary of “One Nation Under God” state-wide activities:
  • 3 voter registration field coordinators in 3 target legislative districts.
  • Two of the three pro-family candidates won.
  • Distributed more than 50,000 voter guides with David Smith of Illinois Family Institute.
  • Conducted voter registration drives at 77 churches.
  • Mailed 8,600 pastors regarding the Christian biblical duty to vote.
  • Statewide radio ads featured on more than 80 Ohio stations for weeks, recorded by David Barton of WallBuilders.
North Carolina
  •  Spent over $100,000 on a massive radio buy with 3 different ads, including Trump’s opposition to late-term abortion, in final 120 days.
  • Mailed to 4,300 pastors on biblical duty to vote, was included in sermons in many churches.  (Letter noted below in its entirety.)
  • Sent out comparison of Party Platforms:  “What Do the Major Party Platforms Say on Issues of Interest to Christians?”   (Check here to read What Do the Major Party Platform Say?  As Paul noted, people do want to know the fundamental differences between the both parties.  Many younger people who register to vote don’t have a good feeling on how to make an intelligent vote.  For many individuals, there are too many issues to keep track of.)
Below is the letter based on Luke 22:25 (Render to Caesar) that was sent to pastors in North Carolina and Ohio. The letter received tremendous support from pastors.
Dear Pastor __________________,
Our freedom to exercise our Bible-based Christian values are under attack as never before.
Yet more than 30 million eligible Christians did not vote in the last Presidential election.
Christians don’t only have the right to vote, we have a duty to vote.  In Luke 20:
22-25, Jesus says, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar and to God the things that are
We no longer have authoritarian rulers as in the time of Jesus, that’s why our duty to participate in a democratically elected government is increased because it is “We the People” who are given the responsibility of selecting the best possible leaders, based upon our Bible-based values.
Christians should be model citizens.  Don’t we have a duty not only to pay taxes, but to serve on a jury, to answer the call for military service if required, and yes to elect those who will govern us?  We believe the duty of Ohio Christians to vote on or before Tuesday, November 8th is Biblically-based and self-evident.
We pray that you will be led to share these thoughts with your members.
May Our Lord continue to bless you and your Ministry.
  • With money left over from Ohio and North Carolina get out the vote efforts, Wisconsin was chosen as a state that would benefit.  Radio ads were run the final 10 days before the Election.  $50,000 was spent for statewide radio ads the final week of campaign.
Paul’s final comments
November 8th was a great victory in our battle to protect religious liberty and to restore traditional values, but the war is only beginning.  November 8th only gave this nation some breathing room.  The secular Left, stunned by this defeat, will be only more aggressive than ever before in 2017.  There will be attacks on the right of conscience, transgender bathrooms, opposition to the appointment of a pro-life justice on the Supreme Court, etc.
Paul Caprio feels blessed that God allowed him to help Trump win through his One Nation Under God organization.   He also feels blessed that God listened and restored him to complete health by the end of June in 2016 after his serious bout with cancer in March of 2016.
Caprio encouraged all to play a part in restoring this nation, just as immigrants helped to build this nation when migrating for economic opportunities and religious freedom.  As Paul related:  “This nation was founded upon the idea of freedom.  We made some mistakes, but we helped Germany and Japan get back on their feet again after WWII.  We have much to be proud of and to feel thankful for.”
Although Caprio was not pleased with how Republicans caved in to the Budget Authorization bill and other Democratic measures during Obama’s presidency, we now have the opportunity to broaden the Republican Party, but in a principled way.  From the time of FDR the Democrat Party was labeled as standing for the working man, while the Republican Party was described as the party of the Country Club.  These label were fractured and hopefully forever abandoned with the election of Donald Trump.
Elected Officials and Candidates who attended and signed in: 

Glen Garamoni, GOP Chairman of Fremont Township.

Ann Oakley, Cook Memorial Public Library District
Dawn Abernathy, Trustee, Village Mundelein
Kelley Smith, Precinct Committeeman, Vermon #260
Carol Walsh,  Head of Lake County Aid for Women and Christmas Elf
Mark Shaw, Lake County GOP Chairman
Tom Weber, Lake County Board
Dan Patlak, Cook Country Board of Review
Erin Westphal, Lake County Republican Federation Executive Director
Martin Zeidman, Chairman of Moraine Township
Nancy Kubalanza, Grant Township GOP Chair
Connie Shanahan, Freemont Township Trustee
Teri Attleson, Freemont Township Trustee

Thorner & Ingold: Obama’s lame-duck land mines


If true, giving anti-aircraft missiles to the Syrian rebels is an act of utter stupidity on the part of Obama. How long before these missiles find their way to ISIS, Al Qaeda, or any number of hostile groups to shoot down our planes and airliners? 

The fact is, there is no daylight between the “friendly” rebels in Syria and these other groups, merely geography and opportunity.

When the Russians moved into Aleppo, they discovered mass graves of people tortured and executed, in all likelihood by the rebels. The area in question was held by the rebels for several years, and denied to the Syrian government and the Russians. Assyrian Christians were able to celebrate Christmas for the first time in many years, claiming they were prevented as rebels became increasingly Islamist in their rule.

In all likelihood, Obama knows this but thinks the consequences will fall on the President-Elect. The best indication of this knowledge is his reluctance to come to the rebels’ aid after Assad crossed Obama’s “Red Line in the Sand.” There is not and never was a clear way to identify “friendly” rebels.

In his brief tenure, Jimmy Carter managed to alienate the Middle East by his interference in Iran. Obama has built on the Carter legacy in steroids. At least Carter had respect for Israel. Will American Jews see Obama’s conspiracy with the U.N. as their “Red Line in the Sand” now that Obama has enabled the UN Security Council to vote for a resolution which urges Israel to end settlement activities in occupied territory?  This resolution will be difficult for Trump to reverse, because UN Security resolutions are considered law in some parts of the world.

In respects to Russia, Obama has recently upset Russia when he signed the NDAA on Friday, December 23, 2016.  The bill was passed by veto-proof majorities in both the House and the Senate earlier this month.  As in other recent years, the bill prohibits military cooperation between the United States and Russia until Russia has “ceased its occupation of Ukrainian territory and its aggressive activities that threaten the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.”  Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has concluded that the Authorization Act has been adopted by the outgoing Obama administration to create problems for the incoming Trump administration.  

Another johnny-come-lately policy on December 20, 2016, of Obama’s lame-duck presidency was to designate Atlantic and Arctic areas off-limits to offshore drilling

There must be an effort to stop this lame-duck president before he can lay any more landmines in our foreign and domestic policy. Let there be a lantern in the steeple of the North Church.