Monday, November 23, 2015

Thorner: A Heartland Event Features Eight Talented Women of Achievement

Photo by Mark Weyermuller

By Nancy Thorner – 

Women in Politics, the 2016 Election,” was hosted by the Center for Constitutional Reform, a project of The Heartland Institute , at Heartland’s new venue at 3939 North Wilke Road, Arlington Heights, Illinois, on Wednesday, November 18 from 6:30 to 9:00 p.m.

In what is a first for American history, there is a female candidate seeking the presidency as a primary candidate for both major parties. Moreover, at the national and state levels women are increasingly entering politics to lead the political debate.

With this in mind,The Heartland Institute featured two panels consisting of a moderator and three women each to highlight the role of women in politics at a local level. Each panel member was given 10 minutes to speak, followed by a session of questions and answers from audience members.

Not all of the women chosen had run and been elected to office.  Furthermore, the women came from many difference backgrounds.  Nevertheless, all were making a difference in what they were doing to influence the public in their own chosen roles.  Following a short description of each woman’s background is a condensed summary of their remarks.

Panel 1:

Elizabeth Yore, moderator, served as a Special Council at Harpo, Inc. for the last 5 years. In that position, she acted as Oprah Winfrey’s Child Advocate both with the Oprah Winfrey Show and in South Africa at the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls.  Ms. Yore quoted Margaret Thatcher

“In politics, if you want anything said, ask a men. If you want anything done, you ask a woman.”

On the panel were:

Jeanne Ives, a 1987 West Point graduate, serves as a representative in the 42nd Illinois State House, where she leads on difficult issues and question powerful House leaders.

There were time when Jeanne questioned whether she really belonged at West Point. This changed upon a realization that she could physically beat her male peers. Don’t allow others to separate us by gender. Women must know who they are and what they wish to accomplish. When asked to run, it was men who convinced her to run as an equal. If women answer why they are running for office they will win. Gender should not be an issue. Also, politicians who challenge the status quo do better in winning elections. Nevertheless, Jeanne has found that there are bills that women are expected to vote for like equal pay laws and pregnancy accommodations.
Amy Jacobson spent a decade covering Chicago news and politics for WMAZ-TV NBC 5, including the White Sox World Series run in 2005 land the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. In 2010 Amy joined AM 560 where she co-hosts a morning show (5:00 – 9:00 a.m.) with Dan Proft.
Amy voted for Barack Obama in the primary the first time around. She now realizes what a mistake that was, as Obama was not prepared for the job.  It’s showing, as Obama is failing as president.  The focus must be on the best candidate to defeat Hillary Clinton. Amy remains undecided at to that choice.
Kathleen Murphy serves as Director of Communications for the Illinois Opportunity Project, where she helps the organization frame policy positions, advance leaders, promote and free-market policy solutions.

Kathleen spoke about the new generation of voters (Millennium young voters) who by 64% believe in principle that the free market system is the best economic system, but who are not sure free markets will help their lives. Since Millennium voters are willing to accept new ideas, it is up to us to show the way to the next generation so free market principles prevail. The rise of the outsiders is a sign of frustration. People are demanding something new over career politicians. As far as the role women will play, women respond to empathy, but the message must be right in the first place. Women should have pushed back against the “Julia” ad which showed women as helpless and dependent on government, in contrast to using government as a safety net where help is given when needed, but not as a source of a woman’s livelihood to stifle individual growth and the motivation to succeed. In 2016 women must not only be specific in what they are going to do, but they must also define why, which is seldom done.

Panel 2:

Hillary Till served as moderator.  She is a policy advisor to The Heartland Institute where she provides advise on risk-management and derivatives trading issues through Premia Risk Consultancy, Inc. She is also the co-editor of “Intelligent Commodity Investing”, a bestseller for Risk Books.

Members of the panel:

Margo McDermed was a corporate lawyer with Amoco for 30 years, before running for office, first as the Frankfort Township Clerk, until she was elected in 2014 to the Illinois House (R-37).

After her years in a corporate position, Margo asked of herself, “What’s next?”   In progressing up a notch from a township clerk to a legislator, Marge found this position to be far more fun than being a judge. Marge’s experience as a precinct man for many years enabled her to get the support of other Republicans to work hard for her.  As a candidate Marge knocked on countless doors herself.  Margo perceives strength in politics as directness and openness which Marge puts into practice when dealing with her constituents.  Having family with you is very important as politics is very time consuming.

Jeanette Ward is a West Chicago resident, who was elected to the Board of Education in School District U-46 in 2015. As a parent volunteer, she has been critical of the district’s standards-based grading system, Common Core, and the new standardized test, PARCC.

Jeanette was very reluctant to enter politics, knowing situations could become quite divisive when dealing with liberals.  Upon election to Board U 46, Jeanette became known as “Mamma Grizzly.”  As a critic of Common Core, Jeanette became upset when her 2nd grade daughter told her that Global Warming was the biggest threat facing polar bears, and when her 5th grade daughter had to read the “UN Declaration of Human Rights.” There was also an incident when the children in Jeanette’s oldest daughter’s classroom were asked to draw a picture of a liberty they admired, but were then told that no pictures of guns were permitted.  It’s important for women to make a principled stand to counter men who falsely claim they are defending our children.  Jeanette is disappointed that men are been degraded in our culture in the public schools.

Heidi Holan is a Republican candidate for State Representative in District 46 and also the Illinois State Coordinator for

When Heidi was asked to run against her state representative by Jeanne Ives and others, she thought it was a joke. It did please Heidi that she was not being asked to run because she was a woman. Although Heidi had helped in the campaigns of others, it is one thing to be a helper and another a candidate. Heidi recommended challenging the status quo through knowing the details and how to explain them. Heidi then went on to inform what is wrong with the State of Illinois. 1) Gerrymandering where legislators choose their voters. As Democrats control Illinois, the maps are drawn by Democrats to pick their voters. 2) Mandatory union dues, of which 95% of dues collected is spent for Democratic causes and to elect Democratic candidates. “Fredrick’s v. State of California” is to be heard by the Supreme Court early next year, which could allow teachers to opt out of agency shop fees. 3) Policy votes vs. a political vote. Bills are buried in committees or there is shell voting (bogus) is done which allows legislators to go back home and tell constituents they voted a certain way, but the vote taken was just for show and didn’t count.

Following are selected questions and answers from Panels 1 and 2 

1.  What about apathy? How to deal with it?   Until it gets personal, it doesn’t matter. There is a need for authentic candidates who tap into the concerns of the people.

2.  Should the divorce of a candidate matter?   Should loyalty to a wife set the criteria for whether a candidate will be loyal to his country?  As divorce goes to character, should divorce matter? To some, why the divorce happened was the criteria. To others, divorce was not considered important.

3.  How to rebrand the word “feminist”?  The word seems to apply to progressive issues, but should a women who stays at home be any less of a woman than one who work?   It was voiced that a feminist is a woman who lives the life she wishes to live.

4.  How to cope with an unpleasant political environment?  Take one day at a time. Ask: What can I do today to stand up for my values and for my voters today.”

5.  Never having been involved in politics, how do you do it (juggle your life?  Politics must always be a family business as the activity is very demanding. The support of spouse and kids is essential. This doesn’t mean you have to run for office. You can be involved at many different levels.

About Heartland’s trip to Paris for COP-21 and “State of Article 5 Movement”

Jim Lakely, Director of Communications for The Heartland Institute, opened the program.  It was announced that Heartland will be in Paris for the United Nations climate conference known as COP-21.  Heartland will be leading a contingent of Climate Realists to tell the world the truth:  Humans are not causing a climate crisis and Heartland can prove it!  The Obama administration and the United Nations are attempting to impose binding carbon dioxide restrictions on the United States and transfer billions of dollars of climate “reparations” from the United States to developing nations.  Heartland will be there to fight against policies that will raise your taxes, increase your energy costs, and destroy.

Visit The Heartland Institute for daily updates on the global warming debate. On Monday, December 7, starting at 3:00 a.m. Eastern Time, it will be possible to watch the live-stream of Heartland’s press conference and panel presentations on global warming.  The event, however, will be “auto-achieved” by Heartland’s YouTube page for viewing at any time.

Following Lakely’s presentation, Kyle Maichle, Project Manager of Heartland’s Center for Constitutional Reform, spoke about the “State of Article 5 Movement”. The policy brief entitled,“The Article V Movement:  A Comprehensive Assessment to Date and Suggested Approach for State Legislators and Advocacy Groups Moving Forward” by David Guldenschuh, will be sent to every legislator.  It is the first  publication of The Heartland Institute’s Center for Constitutional Reform, launched earlier in 2015 to support all efforts to restore constitutional order in the United States. If you have any questions about this study or ideas for how we can work together to promote this effort, please contact Project Manager Kyle Maichle.

Saturday, November 21, 2015

Thorner/Hasty: Marco Rubio: Charming Young Man or Weasel?


(Opinions expressed are those of the authors’. Illinois Review has not endorsed a candidate in the Republican presidential primary. Other opinions are welcomed. Please send op-eds to

By Nancy Thorner and Elvira Hasty – 

Most Americans believe our country is going in the wrong direction, as noted by the latest polls (NBC/WSJ 64% and USC/LA Times 70%). We are facing the near total transformation promised by President Barack Hussein Obama, one that has taken this nation from an exceptional world power to the brink of a lawless corrupt nation, subject to the brunt of jokes among world leaders.

Our stated national debt is near $20 trillion, but in reality it’s three times as much if unfunded liabilities are added. About 94 million Americans are out of the labor force. Our borders are not secured while sanctuary cities protect foreign criminals. Our policemen are being demonized. Our Judeo/Christian values are being persecuted and humiliated. Our national security is being threatened by admission of “Syrian refugees” even after the horrific terrorist acts in Paris on Friday, November 13.

Election 2016 presents us with the unique opportunity to elect a new leader who will begin to undo this Marxist transformation. The new leader will be facing enormous difficult issues. There is no room for learning or mistakes of inexperience. This mandates that the elected president must be ready on DAY ONE to tackle problems head on, without fear of PC reporters or lobbying by special interests groups, such as the Chamber of Commerce. This individual must have leadership qualities proven by previous experience of accomplishments, couple with the innate qualities of honesty, responsibility, and toughness.

We do not believe Senator Marco Rubio can be that leader of the free world, who, not unlike President, happens to be a skilled orator with a silver tongue.  First, Rubio’s only job throughout his 44 years of life has been in the public sector, as a State Representative and House Speaker in Florida, and one term as United States Senator.  Also of concern is that Rubio has no business experience nor did he serve in the military.  We cannot afford to elect another life-long politician who has demonstrated no particular accomplishments other than one major legislation win in the Senate:  Comprehensive Immigration reform, that was thankfully terminated in the House of Representatives.

The highlight of Senator Rubio’s entire life is having been the architect and leader of the infamous “Gang of Eight” legislation that would had given amnesty to millions of illegal aliens without border protection first.  After seeing his poll numbers drop drastically, Senator Rubio claimed to have changed his mind, understanding finally that border security must occur first.

Senator Rubio, despite his denial, still supports amnesty, welcomes more foreign workers, and supports citizenship for the DREAMERS.  As to welcoming more foreign workers, Senator Rubio has co-authored legislation to expand H-1B wage depressing visa program by replacing white-collar American workers with foreigners.  The Disney Company used H-1B visas to replace American workers and then forced American workers to train their low-wage foreign worker replacements.   Other benefactors (contributors) to the Rubio campaign include Silicon Valley companies, Microsoft, Goldman Sachs, Oracle, Morgan Stanley and others, all having in common a fervent desire to increase the number of H-1B In addition, the Fanjul Corporation (Florida sugar industry), is the fourth largest contributor to the Rubio campaign.  Senator Rubio came to the rescue of the Fanjul family when in 2012 he voted to keep the subsidized federal sugar program.

NATIONAL SECURITY/FOREIGN POLICY—In today’s world these two issues go hand-in-hand.  Having insecure borders invites the presence of criminals and terrorists.  We are already familiar with a crime spree by illegal aliens on American citizens, as is detailed in Ann Coulter’s book, “Adios America.”  It is impossible for Senator Rubio to support illegal aliens in our country while pretending to be tough on crime and terrorism.  His “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” did not include securing the border before legalizing illegal aliens.  Amendments introduced by Republican senators to allow for more scrutiny of immigrants, as well as for those granted legal H-1B visas, were rejected by the Gang of Eight members, which included Senator Marco Rubio.   For Rubio, just like for Senator Schumer, it was all or nothing.

Sen. Marco Rubio declared on Thursday, November 12 on Fox’s America’s Newsroom that “people will have to be deported” before we can have immigration reform. “We are going to have to deport some people, otherwise if you’re not going to enforce the law, what’s the point of having those laws?.  Criminals are going to be deported. People who haven’t been here very long are going to be deported. People overstaying visas are going to have to be deported. That’s how you enforce immigration laws.   Even so, Rubio criticized those  who advocate deporting all of those in the country illegally, saying it’s not possible.

In addition to Senator Rubio’s lack of experience and accomplishments, his honesty is of even greater concern.  This lack of honesty has been detected not only by his continuous “double-speak” on the Immigration issue, but also by other more subtle issues.  Senator Rubio had for years permitted everyone to believe his parents were like most of the Cuban community in Miami — refugees from a communist Cuba.  When the news media revealed that Rubio’s parents had immigrated to the US before Castro had come to power in Cuba, Marco Rubio’s explanation was that he was confused by the dates.  Why does Rubio’s long-time deception make a difference?  Because the post-Castro Cuban community, more than any other ethnic group, is basically conservative in their views and can be counted on to vote Republican.   For this reason the post-Castro Cuban ethnic group is hated most by liberals because of their conservatism on economic and social issues.

Regarding his protestations about immigration, Senator Rubio has stated different positions on illegal immigration depending whether he is speaking in English for an American audience or in Spanish for the Telemundo Spanish audience.  Phyllis Schlafly’s article of August 18, that Rubio should quit the presidential race over this dishonesty.

Recently, Marco Rubio flip-flopped on another issue, TPP. Back in April Rubio wrote an op-ed piece in the WSJ declaring that “we must pass TPP.  The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), discussed between President Obama and Prime Minister Abe this week, will further our strategic goals in Asia and increase prosperity at home. It will advance economic liberty and unleash free-market forces in the world’s most dynamic region…”  And in May, Rubio described TPP as the “second pillar” of his three-pillar foreign policy strategy.  Recently Senator Rubio’s spokesman said that although he backed the bill granting Mr. Obama fast-track trade authority this summer, he has not decided whether to support TPP legislation.”

DEBT/ECONOMY/JOBS—As far as to never having been in business, Marco Rubio has a history of poor personal financial planning.  Most are aware of his use of a State of Florida credit card for personal use while he was a House Representative.  As Marco Rubio has explained, it was just a mistake and the State of Florida was reimbursed for his personal purchases.  It is not a crime, but it certainly shows sloppiness in dealing with credit.  But this is not the only incident of mismanaging personal finances.  Senator Rubio has a closed wealthy friend and personal benefactor, Norman Braman, owner of multiple automobile dealerships. Mr. Braman has paid for much of Rubio’s personal debts.  What promises might have been made?  How politicians handle their personal finances might offer insights into how they would handle America’s finances if elected president. The latest wealthy supporter of Senator Rubio is hedge-fund billionaire Paul Singer. It just happens that Mr. Singer is a strong supporter of amnesty and immigration expansion.

Senator Rubio who who is particularly eloquent, speaks often of his experience in Foreign Policy as a member of the Senatorial Foreign Relations committee.  He seems to have impressed many Americans with his credentials on foreign relations matters.  But it is this important fact that most Americans forget:  element that most Americans forget:  Senator Rubio, together with Senator McCain and Senator Graham, were strong supporters of Mrs. Clinton’s regime change in Libya.   Senator Rubio and his Senate friends had insisted on a “no fly zone” to save “innocent Libyans.”  Today Senator Rubio no longer mentions Libya; that is just Hillary’s problem since after all, she was the Secretary of State.

If you listened to Marco Rubio in the 4th Republican debate on Nov. 10, 2015, you would have heard Rubio voice his support for a “no fly zone” in Iraq where Russian planes are bombing. Rubio thinks the USA must make a statement, but what kind of statement?   Do we wish to start WWIII to who our machismo?   In the same Nov. 10 debate, Rubio called the President of a major country we must deal with (Russia) a gangster.  It is doubtful that Putin would wish to deal with Rubio as president.  It is instead time to talk to Putin and bring him to a coalition of our western allies to fight together the battle against Islamist terrorism and annihilation of ISIS.

Don’t allow Senator Rubio’s slick cleverness to distract you from the issues.  Senator Rubio has the tendency to embellish as well as “double-speak” when convenient.  He was chosen some years back as the future golden boy of the Republican Establishment.  He was never a Tea Party favorite.  The only reason Tea Party supporters endorsed and voted for Rubio was because the alternative was Charlie Crist, a RINO turned Independent and now a Democrat.  By the way, Mr. Crist was a cabinet member under Governor Jeb Bush.  Another present from the Bush family.

Marco Rubio owes his Senate seat to the support of Governor Jeb Bush and the Bush donors.  Entering the presidential race after only one term in the Senate surely had to upset the Bush family.  It was supposed to be Jeb’s turn now.  The fact that Rubio entered the race a month after Jeb’s presidential announcement, way before Jeb’s polls crashed, shows how little loyalty Rubio has to anyone who has helped him, never mind the voters.

Friday, November 20, 2015

Thorner/O’Neil: Has Judicial Supremacy reached a crisis stage?

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall

By Nancy Thorner and Bonnie O’Neil – 

Judicial activism refers to judicial rulings suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint. The question of judicial activism is closely related to constitutional interpretation, statutory construction, and separation of powers.         

There is a growing discrepancy in how specific current Supreme Court Justices view their role from that of those who formed our government, constitution and the initial Supreme Court. Our forefathers’ initial intent for the Supreme Court was to be less than that of the powers granted to Congress or the Presidency. Instead, it appears their role morphed into a dominant one that supersedes the other branches.

As in most cases of unwanted and/or unwarranted changes, the process began slowly, with slight adjustments that progressed to more significant changes.  A relatively minor lawsuit, “Marbury v. Madison”, began the major change that allowed the Supreme Court to make decisions that deemed acts of Congress and those of the President unconstitutional, thus creating a precedent for an American process of “judicial review.”  Chief Justice John Marshall influenced that first decision, and thus future Courts.    [The Marbury v. Madison decision asserting that states are bound to its rulings was issued in the midst of popular resistance in many southern states to the Court’s earlier ruling in Brown v. Board of Education which declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students to be unconstitutional.]

The concept of “judicial supremacy”, or as some Constitutional lawyers say “judicial tyranny”, should be of great concern, because it indicates a failed feature of government, inconsistent with what our founders fought a revolution to establish. When there is too much power concentrated in the courts our republic is threatened.

 Abuse of Power by the Court

There are glaring examples of what happens when the Court abuses its power and delivers morally unconscionable rulings, such as: 1) when it rationalized the destruction of innocent human life (Roe v. Wade, Jan. 22, 1973)  and 2) justified Japanese-American internment camps (December 18, 1944).

Many U.S. presidents such as  Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt have lamented and even ignored highly questionable Supreme Court rulings, apparently out of the belief the Supreme Court can circumvent the Constitution and “make law.”

However, those with the authority to make law is noted in Article 1, Section 7 of our Constitution, and the Supreme Court is not mentioned in it anywhere. That tells us that the Supreme Court has absolutely no role to play in creating or amending our laws. The justices simply have the power to judge and interpret the laws as they were enacted.

It is evident that the Supreme Court is not following the intent of  the Constitution, as witnessed in recent cases of judicial tyranny in which decisions had absolutely no basis from the Constitution, but instead were invented, or as some say, “pulled out of thin air.”  Moreover, the Supreme Court has decided important cases based more on what they perceived as popular opinion rather than having been judged on the basis of rule of law.  Should Supreme Court decisions really be reduced to a popularity contest? The highest court in the land has abused its power, as justices decide how they want to rule and then dig deep for a reason to justify their decisions.  This must not continue.

Two Court Case Displaying Judicial Activism

The King v. Burwell decision is a recent example of action the Court took in order to save the Affordable Care Act from being nullified. Without any justification of facts or language found in the Constitution, Supreme Court Justices upheld federal subsidies for all eligible to purchase health insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

What happened in King v Burwell?

Ignoring those outstanding facts, the Supreme Court ruled in a favorable way to allow President Obama’s failing health care program to continue, without legal basis or legitimate evidence for that ruling.

Another recent example of judicial supremacy took place in June of this year when the 5-4 Obergefell v. Hodges decision made marriage equality the law of the land.

An issue of concern arising from the Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision is that two justices proved their bias about the case but did not recuse themselves.  Both Justices Kagan and Ginsburg officiated at same-sex weddings before they judged the important case. This was in violation of Title 28, Section 455 of the U.S. Code 455 which states “any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his/her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Certainly their choice to officiate at a homosexual wedding indicated ‘reasonable’ bias, as required for dismissal from the case, but they chose not to recuse themselves.  That was particularly critical as had they recused themselves, the verdict would have been a reverse decision.

Of equal concern is that the Supreme Court’s ruling on Obergefell v. Hodges, went well beyond deciding the case for the specific state involved, and instead expanded their decision to legalize homosexual marriage throughout the entire country.  This was particularly troublesome for the states that had established laws denying such marriages as being illegal.

This recent Supreme Court has seemingly violated laws and precedents to a degree that has forced a spirited discussion about options to remove specific justices.  Constitutional lawyers throughout our country are discussing the subject of judicial tyranny and deciding on procedure by which offending justices can be removed.

Ways to Rein In Judicial Tyranny

Speaking at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight on July 22, 2015, Senator Cruz doubled down on his accusations of Supreme Court activism and called for the need to “rein in judicial tyranny” through judicial term limits and retention election.  As Cruz said:  “So long as justices on the court insist on behaving like politicians … they should not expect to be exempt from the authority of voters who disagree with their policy decisions.”  Certainly the decision they handed down had no credible evidence linking it with any past laws established by our forefathers or the Constitution upon which their verdicts are required to support.

John Eastman, chairman of the board of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), in testifying before Cruz’s July 22, 2015 subcommittee, added one more check on the Supreme Court.  Eastman suggests that states be given the ability to override “egregiously wrong decisions of the Supreme Court.”  

There are established remedies that concerned Americans can do as well:

1.  Americans can persuade Congress to propose and the state legislatures to ratify constitutional amendments that overturn unpopular Supreme Court decisions.  Such was accomplished by the 14th amendment (ratified in 1857) which overturned much of the Dred Scott decision.

2.  They can demand court-curbing bills of the kind that Congress has proposed during periods of intense disagreement with the Court, as done during the 1820s and the progressive and New Deal eras.

3.  They can elect presidents who promise to change the direction of the Court, as did Andrew Jackson in 1828, Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936, and Richard M. Nixon in 1968.

4. They can demand court-curbing bills under Article III section 2 (“…the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction…with such exceptions and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”)  and end up with a pleas to make Article III section 2 a big issue in the coming primary and fall elections.

Proving to have a sense of humor, Benjamin Franklin at the Philadelphia Convention noted that, historically, the removal of “obnoxious” chief executives had been accomplished by assassination. Franklin suggested that a procedural mechanism for removal—such as impeachment—would be preferable.

The American People Deserve Better

Many believe it is time to rein in the judicial system, possibly through a process of impeachment, or other established processes noted above.  The current court has taken liberties not intended by the Constitution or as practiced by our first Supreme Courts.  However, only one Justice, Samuel Chase, went through an impeachment process in which the House voted for impeachment. However, in this case his friends in the Senate chose to acquit.  History shows impeachment is possible but rarely used.  There has never been a more politically motivated Supreme Court or a nation as divided by their decisions, as evidenced today. The boldness of specific justices in defying precedence to enact their obvious liberal agenda, makes the possibility of impeachment more probable.

Members of the current Supreme Court have created such a toxic atmosphere that a more conservative Congress could be tempted to consider the possibility.  Judicial tyranny must not be tolerated by any party or political entity, for the more it is tolerated without a push back, the more omnipotence the Court will become in imposing its will upon the American people in a blatant disregard for the Constitution.

Impeachment is being discussed in prestigious circles today.  The subject should be taken seriously if this nation has any chance of remaining a country that is rooted in Christian values and in the rule of law.  Both are now under assault by a seemingly unaccountable Court of twelve, largely because these justices believe they need not fear the humiliation of  being removed from their positions.


Friday, November 20, 2015 at 01:34 PM | Permalink

Technorati Tags: Illinois Review, John Marshall, tyranny, U.S. Supreme Court


Thursday, November 19, 2015


By Nancy Thorner & Bonnie O’Neil – 

In “Court and Democracy” Jeffry Rosen speaks of the Supreme Court as playing a paradoxical role in American democracy.  He states: “Americans think of the Supreme Court as the least democratic branch of the federal government, designed by the framers of the U.S. Constitution to ‘protect vulnerable minorities’ against the tyranny of the majority.”

Why so?  Might it be because nearly all of the most controversial issues in American politics end up before the Supreme Court and before justices who are appointed for life, with the intent that issues might be decided by our laws, and especially our Constitution, rather than the popular viewpoint of the day?  Thus, the Court’s greatest power was initially perceived as that of judicial review: the power to strike down laws passed by federal and state legislatures, if they violate the basic principles written in the Constitution.

Court originally weaker than Congress or president

When our Republic was in its infant stage, the Court was much weaker than Congress or the president.  Meeting in the basement of the Capitol for the first half of the 19th century, and displaying political cautiousness, only two federal laws were struck down between 1803 and 1857.  What a difference when a more politically secure and assertive Supreme Court struck down all or part of 32 federal laws between 1994 and 2002!

Alexander Hamilton, a founding father of the United States and chief staff aide to General George Washington, was one of the most influential interpreters and promoters of the U.S. Constitution. He predicted that the federal courts would be the “least dangerous branch” of the federal government lacking soldiers or money to enforce their decrees. Hamilton rejected the idea that the Supreme Court was inherently anti-democratic when it struck down federal and state laws in the name of fundamental constitutional principles. Hamilton’s argument:  The Court would serve democracy rather than thwart it, because the Constitution represented the will of the people.

As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78:

“A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.”

By and large, however, the Court throughout its history has reflected national sentiments about constitutional issues more frequently than it has tried (in vain) to check them. For this reason, fears about judicial tyranny have always seemed more urgent to interests on both sides of the political spectrum than to the American people themselves.

Marbury v. Madison decision established an air of supremacy

The Marbury v. Madison decision of 1803 serves as the basis for when the Supreme Court took on an air of supremacy in its progression from Judicial Review to Judicial Activism.

It was Chief Justice John Marshall who declared in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” As such, legal scholars consider Marbury v. Madison a central text for understanding the role of the Courts to interpret law in light of the Constitution, known as judicial review.  Accordingly, proponents of judicial review pointed to Chief Justice John Marshall’s decision in Marbury as a source supporting the view that the Supreme Court has the final say on what the Constitution means.

Thomas Jefferson lamented that allowing the Constitution to mean whatever the Court says it means would make the Constitution “a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

Not until 1857 when the Supreme Court struck down the Missouri Compromise in Dred Scott v. Sanforddid the Court find another act of Congress unconstitutional.

The power of judicial review was used sparingly for the next several decades until early in the 20th Century when the Court began striking down federal laws more often than ever before. John Marshall’s 1803 decision in Marbury vs. Madison was often cited by proponents of judicial review as a source to support their view that the Supreme Court has the final say on what the Constitution means.

 In Cooper v. Aaron the Supreme Court fully displayed its omnipotence

The 1955 Supreme Court decision of Cooper v. Aaron has been identified as the case in which the Court fully displayed its omnipotence.  That case ruled school segregation to be illegal not only in Arkansas, but their ruling extended beyond the state of Arkansas to become the “supreme law of the land”, further demanding that all states must adhere to the ruling.  Their decision might have been popular in most states, which could account for the lack of significant outrage over the Court’s broader ruling, but the more significant problem is that it sets a precedent which has now escalated into what a growing number of Constitutionalists describe as a Supreme Court that has exceeded the intent and bounds of their branch of government.

Following this article we will address the importance of reigning in judicial supremacy, perceived by some Constitutional lawyers as a failed feature of big government, inconsistent with what our founders fought a revolution to establish.

In accordance to Article 1, Section 7 of our Constitution, the Supreme Court is not mentioned anywhere. That tells us that the Supreme Court has absolutely no role to play in creating or amending our laws.  Justices simply have the power to judge and interpret the laws as they were enacted.  Lacking a push back against judicial tyranny, the Court will become more bold in its assumption of omnipotence in imposing its will upon the American people in a blatant disregard for the Constitution.

Thursday, November 12, 2015


By Nancy Thorner and Ed Ingold – 

As predicted, President Barack Obama on Friday, November 6, 2015, rejected the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada in a victory for environmentalists who campaigned against the project for more than seven years.  His reasons include protection of the environment, no “lasting” economic benefits for the U.S., and the current low price of petroleum.

The supposed danger to the environment is based on the mining of oil sands in Canada, not with the pipeline itself. In fact, oil sands mining will continue unabated, but the oil will be transported by truck and rail at 30 times the environmental risk of a pipelineAccording to the governor of South Dakota, Dennis Daugaard, rejection of the Keystone Pipeline by Obama mean that rail capacity needed to carry petroleum will not leave enough to carry farm produce and grain.

The so-called “temporary” economic benefits consist of employing 20,000 U.S. workers for two to five years building the pipeline, at PRIVATE expense. To Obama, “lasting” benefits only accrue when employing far fewer workers to build roads and bridges at PUBLIC expense.

According to Obama, we don’t need Canadian oil.  Even if we had access to Keystone pipeline oil, the oil gasoline prices wouldn’t be reduced [not overnight anyway]. Besides, gasoline is now priced at record low levels [but still higher than when Obama took office].

Low petroleum prices are deceiving.  Modern extraction techniques, including “fracking” (hydraulic fracturing), still need prices over $60/bbl to be profitable. Prices are low because Saudi Arabia, in what is a Saudi Price War on US Oil, is producing crude oil at the same or higher rate as in the past in order to keep prices below the economic break point for U.S. production. The result: our producers are being driven out of business. Petroleum production is down, and thousands of workers have been laid off. It is also the same strategy Rockefeller (Standard Oil) used in the early 1900s to drive his competitors out of business. Rockefeller was then able to charge as much as he wished without restraint. (This, in turn, led to Teddy Roosevelt’s creation of anti-trust legislation, and the start of the Progressive political movement.)

Legacy building guides Obama

As one who deserves a C- as a student of history (and the Constitution), President Obama does not recognize the strategic value of petroleum in world politics. Countries don’t go to war over principles, they fight for natural resources, manufacturing capability, and other strategic assets (e.g., warm water ports). Western Europe depends on Russia for oil and natural gas supplies, whether from Russia directly, or from the Middle East. Without the ability to provide an alternate source of energy, the U.S. cannot count on Europe to back us if Russia were to attack the Baltic States or were Iran to attack Saudi Arabia (almost a certainty in the foreseeable future).

One thing Obama does understand, and only too well, is that in approving Keystone he would undercut his global leadership on Climate Change when nations come together at the end of this month for COP21.

France will chair and host the 21st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP21/CMP11) from November 30 to December 11, 2015. The conference is crucial because the expected outcome is a new international agreement on climate change, applicable to all, to keep global warming below 2°C. This temperature variation has been adopted, in spite of the fact that the same climate experts admit the 2 degree rise will occur regardless of the proposed CO2 cutbacks. The real issue:  transferring billions of dollars to corrupt, “developing” nations, while at the same time crippling the economies of those nations expected to pay up.

Legacy is all important to Obama.  Consequences matter little to Obama, as long as his political agenda is being fulfilled in accordance to what he views as appropriate in his assumed role of an imperialist president.

Obama, in accusing others about politicizing the pipeline, remarked that its importance had become “overinflated” and was being used as campaign fodder by both parties.  However, Obama is using the pipeline as a symbol for his global climate change legacy?  Approving the pipeline would have been out-of-step with Obama’s climate message.

It matters not to Obama that as this nation has lead the world in reducing emissions. His legacy assured, it will be up to succeeding presidents to deal with the problems he has created. Rejection of the Pipeline is part of a win-win strategy for Obama and a lose-lose strategy for the rest of nation.

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

Thorner/O’Neil: Lead plaintiff of ‘Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association’ states her grievances


By Nancy Thorner & Bonnie O’Neil – 

As noted in our collaborative article published Monday, Nov. 9, 2015 in Illinois Review“Supreme Court to Adjudicate Mandatory Union Fees”, Rebecca Friedrichs is the lead plaintiff, an outspoken opponent of her teachers’ union who agreed to let her name become identified with the case. Friedrichs has taught elementary school for 28 years, mostly in the Savanna School District in Anaheim, Ca. You can listen to her discuss the case here, read a Q&A with her here, and a commentary by her in the Orange County Register here.

We cannot deny there is much wrong in the world of government and politics today, but few who complain about specific problems do anything to correct them. That may be because the average person feels incapable of facilitating a positive change, believing it a difficult, even hopeless task. True, it is a daunting task, often quite expensive and absolutely time consuming. Therefore, it is understandable that individuals consider themselves ill-equipped to facilitate any significant policy change, and thus most of us choose to just live with the problem, which is why problems remain problems year after year and end up lasting for decades.

Anthropologist. Margaret Mead, believed individuals could facilitate change in our world, as evidenced by her famous quote:  “Never believe that a few caring people can’t change the world.  For, indeed, that’s all who ever have.” Some might argue that Mead, born in 1901, lived during a period of time when it was possible for individuals to facilitate a change, but that our world today is far more complicated, and it has become increasingly difficult for an individual to accomplish any major change in established laws or procedures.

That may be true, but even today there remain a few American citizens willing to try to correct problems they encounter, especially when it significantly impacts their lives as well as others. Rebecca Friedrichs is a perfect example of such a person. She saw a significant problem with the rules and tactics of the powerful California Teachers Union and decided for the sake of teachers, students, and ultimately society that these problems needed to be exposed and challenged. Mrs. Friedrichs’ ultimate hope in doing so was to facilitate a positive change that would benefit teachers as well as students.

Lead Plaintiff’s Concerns

Friedrichs realized the California Teachers Union (CTU) had expanded its scope of responsibility far beyond its original role of helping and protecting teachers from job-related problems, such as providing legal counsel in situations where teachers needed assistance. Instead, the Union morphed into an organization with unprecedented power, far exceeding the authority reasonable people deem acceptable.  The Union increased teachers’ obligatory dues and used the additional money to insert itself into state political matters, even when there was little or no reason to believe such actions were protecting the welfare of teachers or benefiting the education of our children. The California Teachers Union began using members’ dues to finance and support specific organizations which had little or no benefits to teachers.  That practice has escalated with funding directed to highly controversial organizations that a significant portion of the teachers actually oppose.

Friedrichs’ main concern was not about union dues for collective bargaining, but about these additional fees teachers are asked to pay.  Friedrichs is one of many who resent financing groups, candidates, and/or politicians whose purposes are in direct opposition to her own and others.  The Union allows teachers to be exempt from paying those specific fees, but they must then continue to work with Union leaders and teachers who resent their decision and exhibit overt resentment.  Thus, there is subtle pressure for teachers to be silent and to continue paying the full dues.

Fair minded people sympathize with teachers who show the courage of their convictions and opt out of paying the fees.  Thus some do applaud Mrs. Friedrichs for being willing to stand up to the injustice, the powerful Union, and the politicians and organizations that have been benefiting from the Unions’ donations. However, there are powerful people benefiting from the donations, making it all the more difficult to find a way to stop the CTA from such practices.

The political power of the California Teachers Union has been well known in specific circles, but recently has also become more obvious to the general public. That is partially the result of reports like the one released by the California Fair Political Practices Commission which stated that the CTA is number one on the “Billion Dollar Club” list of top spenders in California politics.   The CTA alone has spent more money in California politics than Chevron, AT&T, Philip Morris, and Western States Petroleum Association combined.  You read that correctly – “combined.”    For their record breaking spending in politics and for other reasons, former George W. Bush speechwriter, Troy Senik has deemed the CTA the worst union in America.

Political Power Vested Through Dues

According to Lennie Jarrett, project manager for education transformation at Chicago’s Heartland Institute, an article dated February 5, 2014, states that Illinois has the same problem as California.  A teacher will pay $1,000, on average, in union dues each year. It is the policy of most unions to convince teachers they have no choice and must pay these dues to be allowed to work.  Of this money, up to 80 percent is used for purposes other than collective bargaining, and more than 50% is used for politics.

In almost every state, teachers are automatically signed up to have a specific amount of their pay diverted to their unions’ political funds.   The facts indicate when “paycheck protection” laws require unions to get permission from teachers before taking money for political purposes, teachers almost always say “no.” When teachers were given the chance to opt out of paying for the political causes engineered by education unions, they did so in droves.

Education unions have become perennial political powerhouses, nationally and locally. Terry Moe argues in his groundbreaking study of teachers unionsSpecial Interest: Teachers Unions and America’s Public Schools, that “by comparison to other interest groups, and certainly to those with a direct stake in public education—parents, taxpayers, even administrators — the teachers unions are unusually well equipped to wield power.” Consider the following:

  • Fortune magazine has consistently ranked the National Education Association in the top 15 of its Washington Power 25 list for influence in the nation’s capital.
  • The head of the Chicago Teachers Union had this warning to any mayoral candidate in the 2011 mayor’s race who didn’t toe the teachers’ line: “I think the opportunity is to throw the weight of 30,000 members and their families and students and teachers.  I mean, we’re looking at maybe 800,000 people we could affect on some level.”

Due to their massive base and the massive dues that they charge, teachers unions can both mobilize voters and spend huge sums of money to defeat ballot initiatives and candidates that they don’t like. As Terry Moe put it, “when all is said and done, the power of the unions to block change is the single most important thing that anyone needs to know about the politics of American education.”   Enormous political clout is exerted by union heads at the expense of their members who frequently disagree with their union bosses’ political agendas.  Most of the union dues collected (often as high as 95%) flow to a specific political party’s candidates, even though, according to 2003 polling data from a National Education Study, only 51% of teachers who are union members identify with that party. Thus almost half of the union members are paying to elect candidates with whom they specifically disagree.

In disclosure forms filed at the end of the year 2011, it was revealed that the NEA spent almost $88 million — more than 20 percent of its entire budget — on “contributions, gifts and grants” that largely funded left-wing and non-education-related causes, including drives to raise the minimum wage and organizations promoting radical social issues. As a Wall Street Journal” editorial noted, the union’s financial disclosure forms “expose the union as a honey pot for left-wing political causes that have nothing to do with teachers, much less students.”

Left-leaning organizations supported by NEA dues include: 

  • Business and Professional Women/USA
  • Campaign for America’s Future
  • Congressional Black Caucus Foundation
  • Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute
  • Democratic Leadership Council
  • Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network
  • Human Rights Campaign
  • Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
  • National Association for Bilingual Education
  • National Council of La Raza
  • National Partnership for Women & Families
  • National Women’s Law Center
  • People for the American Way
  • Rainbow PUSH Coalition
  • Sierra Club

This website provides more examples of left-leaning recipients of teachers’ unions.

Fairness and equality for all is what our citizens expect of America’s leaders.  Our nation has prospered largely due to those who understand the concept that injustices will survive only as long as people remain quiet about them. Within months, it is expected that Chief Justice John Roberts, and esteemed Justices Samuel Alito, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Anthony Kennedy, Sonia Sotomayor, Anthony Scalia, and Clarence Thomas will all have the opportunity to finally put an end to the cleverly designed teachers’ mandate that has forced teachers to pay into a system that uses their money for political purposes and candidates with whom they politically oppose.   May the Supreme Court vote reflect what is best for all our people, not just those who abuse their leadership privilege. We thank Mrs. Friedrichs and the other ten teachers who have chosen to challenge the status quo and restore equality. We wish them and their attorney well as they expose truths, present facts, and argue their position to the above esteemed Supreme Court Justices.

Tuesday, November 10, 2015

By Nancy Thorner and Bonnie O’Neil – 


We all should be concerned, actually outraged, about a secret deal reported to have been made between former House Speaker Boehner and President Obama. Recently,an executive with Eagle Forum met with his organization’s state leaders, a dozen members of the House and a Senator. Each Congress member complained about the deal and expressed their outrage.

`Their complaints centered around the procedure and a lack of information, among which were the following complaints:

  • “It (the deal)  just came out and no one really knows what’s in it.”
  • “Republican leadership wants it passed, but how can we vote on this massive deal if we haven’t even read it?”

The manner in which Congress members described the budget bill’s secret deal was not unlike what Nancy Pelosi told Congress March 9, 2010 about Obamacare:  “But you have to pass the Obamacare bill to find out what’s in it . . . .”   That caused many Republicans to be furious, but who ever thought the Republican leadership would allow Obama to persuade them to enact the same type of back room type deal?

It was obvious that John Boehner was asking Republicans to vote for a budget bill they did not yet understand and that would give President Obama unlimited authority to raise the debt. Is it any wonder why congressmen were infuriated?  The U.S. national debt jumped $339 billion on Monday, November 2, 2015, the same day President Obama signed into law the two-year budget legislation suspending the debt ceiling which allows the government to borrow as much as it wants above the $18.1 trillion debt ceiling that had been in place.

Dave Walker, who headed the Government Accountability Office (GAO) under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, said that when you add up all of the nation’s unfunded liabilities, the national debt is more than three times the number generally advertised or about $65 trillion!

After further meetings with officials, it finally occurred to the Eagle Forum president what was about to happen. The House was preparing to execute another deception to the American people:  the old bait-and-switch vote.  Just after 3 p.m. EST Wednesday, Oct. 28, there was a vote on the floor of the House with all but 29 of the Republicans in the House voting to advance the “Rule” for the Boehner-Obama secret budget deal.

By passing this “rule,” Republicans who had not read the bill or even likely understood its details were putting Boehner, Pelosi and Obama in charge of our future.  If the Republicans had voted against this “rule,” there would have been no vote on the budget deal. However, just after 5 p.m. the House voted on the Boehner-Obama secret budget bill BEFORE voting against it. This enabled congressmen to go home and tell their constituents that they voted against a very bad bill.  But in reality they didn’t vote against the Boehner-Obama budget deal until after they voted for it.  This is not what constituents expect from their leaders.

The 1st vote of House members to move the Boehner-Obama Budget Deal was at 3:33 pm, Wed. Oct. 28th. You can learn how your member voted here:  Unfortunately, not one U.S. Illinois congressman voted to stop the bill!

The 2nd vote of the House to move the Boehner-Obama Budget Deal occurred at 5:21 pm, Wed. Oct. 28th.   Now, 167 Republicans voted to stop it, but it was too late!  You can find how your member voted here: 

This is the oldest political game in the book — token voting and token opposition. This is not the first time the Republicans in power used tactics that allowed Democrats to pass controversial bills. There is a growing number of people who now suspect many Republicans who claimed they were against Obamacare actually wanted it, which is why they supported Romney as their choice for the Republican presidential ticket. His health care insurance law known as Romneycare, which passed in MA in 2006, was their primary reason.

It is also suspected that specific Republicans allowed Al Franken to steal the 2008 election from Norm Coleman. Facts indicated fraud, but Republicans did little to demand further scrutiny and/or evidence of the fraud, thus their lack of demands allowed Franken to become the vote needed to get a filibuster proof vote of 60 .

Then Republicans permitted Obamacare to pass on Christmas Eve in 2009 when they could have easily stalled and waited until Scott Brown become the 41st vote to filibuster it.  Ultimately, Republicans, refused to defund Obamacare when a shutdown over Obamacare would have been a political winner.  This is clearly why Republican voters are eyeing non-establishment candidates for 2016; they are weary of their representatives ignoring their requests, using deceptive tactics, and voting with the opposition party on highly controversial legislation.

Other D.C. games that hide the agenda of many Republican leaders

1.  By voting for Paul Ryan to replace House Speaker Boehner, conservatives must now have 218 votes to initiate or object to any bill Ryan does not want.  Since Ryan has advocated open borders, what are the chances of enacting and passing conservative bills with which the speaker disagrees even if a Republican president should be elected?

2. By allowing Democrats to register the bad votes, Republican House moderates are spared the blame when unpopular bills are passed.  There should be a caucus rule that no bill reaches to the floor that doesn’t have majority Republican support. Any such bill, except with a discharge petition, would mean an automatic revote for a new Republican House Speaker by the Republican caucus.

3. By allowing one rule for Democrats but another rule for Republicans, Democrats were allowed to suspend the filibuster under Reid to get Obama’s bad judges through, but the Republicans didn’t turn the tables and end it under their rule this year. Republicans could force Obama to veto a lot of bad bills. In 2001 Bush’s tax cuts got through the Senate on budget reconciliation rules so Democrats couldn’t filibuster them. Are we going to do the same thing for President Cruz’ or President Trump’s tax plans? Maybe. But what about all the other legislation Democrats could filibuster, including judges and other presidential appointments?

Might Republicans suffer from ‘Stockholm Syndrome’?

This accusation from the Eagle Forum president is not lost on many frustrated conservatives:

“It is always a surprise when men and women of good will are dishonest.   We conservatives believe the truth matters and that men and women of good will are abiders of the truth. To be candid, I am not sure whether the lies we are being told are malicious or if the Republicans are in the throes of ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ and believe that what they are doing is somehow justified. But I am not sure it matters: America is on the brink and our congress is lying to us.”

The budget deal hammered out by Boehner with his fellow leaders in Congress and the White House, enraged the very members of his conference who edged Boehner out.  The Obama-Boehner deal would increase the $18.1 trillion debt limit by at least $1.5 trillion and add $80 billion in spending. Although the Boehner deal has been called his “parting gift”, whose gift is it?  While Paul Ryan blasted Boehner over the budget deal, the fact is, Ryan did vote for it.

For many, the 2016 election represents this nation’s last chance to right itself from the path it is has been traveling towards Socialism, a political system that has never succeeded wherever or wherever it has been enacted. This nation desperately needs a president who will wrest control from the establishment of both parties.  We need an entirely new Congress that will work with a conservative president and not use the parliamentary games described above to stop him.

Conservatives have the tools to fight back!

We applaud Kyle McCarter for taking on a “Republican” congressman (John Shimkus of the 15th Congressional District) who has been cynically playing the Washington game to fool his constituents.  Hopefully there will be others who will step forward to take on the rest of Illinois’ “Republican” delegation.

But even if no one steps forward, there is a good possibility of a third party springing up in the fall to register voter disgust.  Dissatisfied Illinois voters can safely vote third party without being accused of “electing a worse Democrat”, in light of U. S. Illinois congressmen like Peter Roskam (67.22%); Randy Hultgrin (65.6%); John Shimkus (75%); and Adam Kinzinger (70.7%) who won by large margins of voters in 2014.

It’s really not a mystery why this nation is failing and patriots are concerned.  Not only are some Republicans not adhering to their campaign promises, but Conservatives won’t use the tools they have to fight back.  If we don’t start now, it won’t be long before we will all be like Kim David, in jail because of the actions of liberal judges and bureaucrats flush with power and an unprecedented audacity never before seen in America until now.

It is time for all good men to come to the aid of their party.  Those of us who loved the America we once knew must not allow socialism to seep into the fabric that allowed us to become the greatest nation in the World.  Elections have consequences; make your vote an educated one and elect a strong, honest patriot who will not be influenced by anything other than what is best for America.

Monday, November 09, 2015


Monday, November 02, 2015


By Nancy Thorner – 

Published at Illinois Review on Saturday, October 31, was this announcement: “Former Congressman Tancredo: Why I am leaving the Republican Party.”  On the same day in a column posted on the conservative website, Tancredo wrote about switching his voter registration to “unaffiliated” because the Republican Party no longer fights for its values and principles of “smaller government, individual rights, fiscal responsibility, and free enterprise.

Tancredo blamed Boehner’s budget deal as the last straw in his decision to no longer defend the Republican Party.  But It remains to be seen whether the GOP will actually miss Tancredo who was a 10-year congressman, former state lawmaker and a veteran of two Republican presidential administration.

Checkered History as a Republican

What about Tancredo’s action in 2010 when he abandoned the Republican Party and launched an American Constitution Party bid for governor — a move that split the conservative vote with GOP candidate Don Maes and gave Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper an easy ride to victory?  As a Constitutional Party candidate, Tancredo received a vote total of 36.7% of votes cast, despite the implosion of Republican Daniel Maes’ campaign “after the Denver Post questioned Maes’ claims of working undercover with the Kansas Bureau of Investigation. The Post investigation found that officials in Kansas either had no recollection of them or could not confirm them.”

But there is more.  Tancredo re-registered as a Republican on Jan. 18, 2011, according to voter records, and ran again for the governorship of Colorado in 2014, losing to Bob Beauprez.  More recently, he was embroiled in a failed push to force the resignation of the Colorado Republican Party chairman.  Most readers might recognize Tom Tancredo for his strong rhetoric against illegal immigration.

Regarding how Tancredo viewed Colorado’s contest for governor back in 2010: “The two (Republican Primary) candidates we have now are unelectable. One is essentially a fraud and another is experiencing all kinds of ethical problems.”   Tancredo was talking about Scott McInnis and Dan Maes, suggesting that McInnis and Maes should drop out if they were trailing in the general election polls on the day of the primary.   Tancredo also threatened to run as a candidate on the American Constitutional Party. Tancredo should have known that he could never win a third party effort.

Tancredo was angry that he hadn’t entered the Republican primary in the first place to easily win the nomination against those he considered losers.  Tancredo’s third party threat was a ploy to get the Republicans to force whoever won the primary to resign and then have party leaders appoint him as the nominee. If the Republicans couldn’t do that, Tancredo thought he would build an organization that could carry him to the nomination next time around or perhaps be the means to launch another run for President. This strategy didn’t work. Instead of the 651,232 votes he won in the 2010 general election for Governor as an American Constitution Party candidate, Tancredo only received 102,830 in the 2014 Republican Gubernatorial primary.

Tancredo’s Timing of Party Switch Scrutinized

I would be the last to defend the present Republican leadership, but Tancredo’s timing can’t be defended. In many states, like in Pennsylvania and Florida, you have to be a registered Republican to vote in the Republican primary.  With candidates like Ted Cruz and even Donald Trump running for president, voters have the chance to really impact the Republican Party for the first time since Ronald Reagan. Tancredo lost his party’s 2014 primary for governor by 13,503 votes, which was .66% of the total vote in the fall election for governor.

There’s not the slightest doubt in my mind that had Tancredo not run as a third party candidate in 2010, he would have won the Republican nomination for Governor in 2014.  Tancredo certainly had a better chance to win than the Establishment candidate, former U.S. Representative Bob Beauprez, who eventually lost against a very weak Democrat incumbent, Gov. John Hickenlooper, by 68,000 votes.

Consider how David Brat beat Eric Cantor in the 2014 primary with 36,105 votes. “Extremist” David Brat went on to the beat the Democrat with 148, 026 votes or 60.83%. Like Ronald Reagan, once a conservative finally wins the Republican nomination, the media is forced to cover him/her.  Voters then find out that he/she is not so “extreme” after all.

Winning the Republican nomination is the best way to get the conservative message out.  It’s a lot easier to find 30,000 votes to win an upcoming Republican 2016 Congressional primary, than to find the 75,000-100,000 votes needed to win in next November’s General Election as a third party candidate.  It’s simple math—it’s a lot easier to win the 10% of the voters you need to win the Republican nomination than the 40-45% you need in the fall as a third party candidate.

That doesn’t mean that conservatives shouldn’t vote third party in the fall when candidates (like our own Mark Kirk) are so ineffective as Republicans that there is no essential difference between the Democrat and Republican candidate.  But individuals within the Republican Party shouldn’t be obvious in how they plan to vote, so next time around the primary can be won.

Not to be dismissed is that liberals took over the Democrat Party in 1972 with the McGovern candidacy, but not until Clinton was elected did the liberals finally get all they wanted.  The liberals even used a third party in 2000 to remind the Democrats not to follow Bill Clinton’s “triangulation”  back to the right, but to continue to be litmus test liberal.  It worked!  The liberals eventually got the two most liberal Democrat nominees in history in Kerry and Obama.

I have found, as a Republican precinct committeeman in Shields Township, IL, that I can always direct my efforts to helping a good conservative in the primary and in the fall.  Why should I lift a finger to elect liberal “Republicans” like Mark Kirk who aren’t going to win and who tarnish the Republican “brand” by being essentially the same as a liberal Democrat?  Such is in contradiction to what Senator McConnell suggested when he urged Republicans to support Mark Kirk because the GOP can’t afford to lose him.  Legislators like Kirk demoralize all grass root Republicans and allow people like Tancredo to flourish.

I am concerned that just as voters are finally electing people like David Brat to Congress and have a chance to choose between the most conservative nominees for President since Reagan, that people like Tancredo are doing the dirty work of the liberal Establishment of both parties by getting people to abandon the greatest tool conservatives have—voting and running in the Republican primary.

But of far greater concern is the obvious and transparent dirty trick Tancredo is playing on Senator Cruz.  As referenced in the Saturday, Oct. 31 article about Tancredo leaving the Republican Party, “…I will begin working my tail off for the next twelve months to organize Independents to help elect Sen.Ted Cruz (R-TX) as President of the United States.”

How can Cruz win without people voting in the Republican Primary?  How can Cruz win the primary if the establishment tarnishes him with Tancredo’s record of only doing what’s best for Tancredo, not the Republican Party.  Wouldn’t it have been far better for Tancredo to urge everyone to come back to the Republican Party to elect Senator Cruz?

Whether FDR actually said it or not, it’s true, in politics nothing happens by accident.  And it seems not to be an accident that suddenly Tom Tancredo, known as a “Bomb Thrower”, is leaving the Republican Party and yet urging the election of “crazy” Ted Cruz, just when Cruz has begun to surge to the top of the pack.