Thorner: Burt Prelutsky – conservative commentator with a sense of humor – who is qualified to write for the Trump administration

By Nancy Thorner – 

Burt Prelutsky describes The Story Of My Life not as a memoir, but as “the saga of one man’s 50-year, often hilarious, journey through a life filled with assorted notables and nut cases, celebrated friends and, yes, even a few famous fiends” that might be of some interest to others. That’s especially true given the many occasions when Burt’s life intersected with the lives of many well-known Hollywood personalities such as Groucho Marx, Oscar Levant, George C. Scott, Jack Webb, Tiny Tim, Ginger Rogers, Bob Hope, Carol Burnett, Jimmy Stewart, and Dick Van Dyke. 

Within the book’s 180 pages with its short, easy-to-read chapters, you will be introduced to many film stars, producers, screen writers, composers, and other famous individuals with ties to Hollywood whose names might only be known to you in passing, or not at all, unless you are a committed movie aficionado. 

But to those of you who have not been dedicated movie goers over many years, that shouldn’t in any way diminish your curiosity or interest in reading Prelutsky’s book. For humor runs throughout all that Mr. Prelutsky writes, adding zest to his fun-filled interview accounts of Hollywood celebrities in which information is revealed that is sure to be tantalizing to readers.

Because of the many interviews conducted by Burt, one would have had to be a cave dweller for years not to recognize and be interested in the off-the-cuff remarks and Burt’s personal observations of Hollywood’s elite. Who hasn’t heard of Dick Van Dyke, Bob Hope, Gene Kelly, Stan Laurel, Burt Reynolds, Ginger Rogers, Mae West, and W. C. Fields?

In Every Life Some Rain Must Fall

Some might be prompted to conclude that Burt must have lived an extraordinary life because of his interactions with so many celebrities that others could only dream of meeting, but would they really wish to change places with Burt, if this were even possible? Burt’s life in Hollywood wasn’t always a bowl of cherries, especially when he turned 50 and discovered that the Hollywood blacklist of the 1950s had been reincarnated as the gray list of the 1990s.

As The Story of My Life makes clear, Burt, despite his obvious talent, has experienced his share of hard times.  One thing he has fortunately avoided is writer’s block, the bugaboo that has afflicted so many others.  Although he concentrates on those occasions when his life intersected the lives of celebrities, he does briefly touch upon his early life, which is essential to understanding what motivated Burt to pursue a writing career in the first place.

Making a Case for Purchasing The Story of My Life

Why should you purchase Burt Prelutsky’s book?  Aside from the humor and insights that permeate the pages of this very delightful book, he is that rarest of birds — an individual who spent decades in Hollywood, and yet managed to survive, his political conservatism intact.

Unlike the usual book of Hollywood nostalgia, Prelutsky didn’t simply interview his subjects.  In many cases, he worked alongside them, befriended them and even dated them.

I don’t want to give too much away, but did you know: 

• Art Linkletter had been an orphan baby in a small town in Canada when adopted by a minister and his wife from San Diego.

• George Burns was written off initially by Burt after having to sit through one of his patter songs at a Groucho Marx dinner party.

• Acclaimed dancers Gene Kelly and Ginger Rodgers wound up crippled in later life, because those beautiful shiny floors they danced on were made of cement.

• Comedian Jackie Gleason had a very nasty side to him.  Booze was the potion that could turn him from Dr. Jekyll to Mr. Hyde in a matter of minutes.

• Jimmy Steward really was the person we all came to regard as the idealized version of ourselves.

•  Jack Webb, The-Just-The-Facts-Guy, provided the break for Burt to write for TV, leading to a career that included writing episodes of McMillan & Wife, MASH, Mary Tyler Moore, Rhoda, Bob Newhart, Family Ties, Dr. Quinn and Diagnosis Murder, as well as a number of award-winning TV movies. 

Ordering your copy of Prelutsky’s The Story of My Life

But there is more to learn about the celebrities listed above, as well as insight into the scores of lives that have touched Prelutsky’s and made his life the hilarious rollercoaster ride you’ll encounter in The Story of My Life, which can be ordered at this website.  

While ordering Prelutsky’s book at Amazon, why not check out seven other outstanding books published by Mr. Prelutsky? All in all, a rather amazing output for someone who didn’t get around to writing his first book until he was 66-years-old!

Before I forget, in Sixty Seven Conservatives You Should Meet Before You Die, published in 2012, among those interviewed by Burt were Kellyanne Conway and Tucker Carlson.

Subscribing to Weekly Doses of Burt’s Humorous Political Commentary

Burt Prelutsky started writing humorous political commentary in 2001. For years, Burt’s commentaries were carried by Breitbart, WorldnetDaily, the Patriot Post and Bernard Goldberg.com and on his own website.  But, as he came to realize, even maintaining a website costs money.  So, as of Sept., 2015, he began a subscription service.

Presently, Burt writes 3-4 commentaries every week that are generously leavened with humor.  As he says, “If you take politics too seriously, you’ll soon go mad.”  Anyone who might be interested in reading the man Bernard Goldberg refers to as the modern Mark Twain can contact him at Burtprelutsky@aol.com for guidelines to subscribing.

To whet your appetite, consider these two samples:

•  And the Bleats Go On — Monday, February 13, 2017

• Our Debt to Obama, Reid & Soros — Monday, January 23, 2017

Monday, February 20, 2017 at 09:18 AM | Permalink

Thorner: One state after another reject Convention of States’ effort

By Nancy Thorner – 

There are enemies, foreign and domestic, to our United States Constitution.  Some want to make our Constitution more globalist-friendly, some want to dilute the Second Amendment, and some want to eliminate the Electoral College.  Some simply want to become important by rewriting our Constitution.  

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg announced on February 6th that she would like to change the Electoral College requirement in the Constitution. Without that, no non-incumbent Republican candidate would have won the presidency in the last quarter century. Without the Electoral College, money alone would dictate the outcome in presidential elections.

Suspect Funding in Pushing “Convention of States”

Why have billionaires been pouring millions into pushing a project deceptively named the “Convention of States,” which seeks an Article V convention that could rewrite our entire U.S. Constitution?  These hidden donors may be connected with George Soros or with the Koch brothers, who are not socially conservative.  Regardless of who the financial backers are, they secretly think they will rewrite our Constitution and they are spending millions to do so.

Big funders of the “Convention of States” must certainly be cognizant that Article V of our Constitution provides two methods of amending our Constitution. Congress either 1) Proposes amendments or 2) calls a convention to propose amendments if 34 States apply for it.  

The first method was used for our existing 27 amendments: Congress proposed them and sent them to the States for ratification or rejection. 

Under the second method, Congress calls a convention. We have never had a convention under Article V, for such conventions are extremely dangerous.

Might there be a reason why George Soros is pushing for a “Convention of States”?  Could it be because George Soros, and Marxist law professors all over the country, want a Marxist Constitution in place by the year 2020.

Attempt to call for Article V rejected in Cleveland by Rep. National Platform

Last July in Cleveland, the Republican national platform committee resoundingly rejected an attempt to include a call for an Article V convention into the platform.  Justice Antonin Scalia, in his final year before he passed away, explained at a public event in May 2015 that it was a “horrible idea” to hold an Article V convention to change the Constitution. Other conservative leaders throughout history, from Phyllis Schlafly to James Madison, have emphatically rejected this bad idea.

Yet Article V proposals are presently being considered in state legislatures, even Republican ones, where bill are being advanced seeking to launch a new constitutional convention that would undoubtedly be dominated by the liberal media, by Democrats, and by Republicans who have earned the title of RINOs (Republicans in Name Only).  Most likely the big money behind the Article V project is with pro-immigration advocates and those who reject American-sovereignty, which could end border security.  The first thing liberals would do in an Article V Convention is attempt to repeal the Second Amendment and further insert a right to taxpayer-funded abortion into the Constitution.

State Con Con Status in 2017

Fortunately, only eight states have enacted the Convention of States out of the 34 required to force a constitutional convention, some using different language different from others.  They are:  Alaska HJR 22, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana SJR 14, Louisiana HCR 52, Oklahoma, and Tennessee SJR 67.  Each of these eight states should rescind its call.   A recent example is the rescission by Delaware of all of its prior resolutions for a Con Con.  Some efforts at rescission 2017 occurred in New Hampshire and New Mexico.

Seventeen states are being targeted in 2017 by promoters of a constitutional convention (also known as “Con Con” or “Convention of States”).  They are: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas (Constitution requires a 2/3’s super–majority vote), Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota,Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 

As of Feb. 17, 2017, there have been five wins and no losses.  Victories have been in Arkansas (Defeated by a 13-17 vote on Senate floor on 1/30/17); South Dakota (Despite COS having three paid lobbyists in 2016, S.D. voted against a COS in a  28-40 House Vote on 2/13/17); Virginia (Convention of States lobbied its Legislature on January 16 — called “Lee and Jackson Day” in Virginia — but the measure lost.); in Wyoming (COS Failed 18-42 on 1/30/17); and in Montana, with its victory on Feb. 17, 2017.

What is the Truth and who has the power to do what?

Our Constitution is not the problem!  An Article V convention to change our Constitution cannot be limited as part of an application for one, such as inserting a Balanced Budget Amendment. The text of the Constitution expressly states that only Congress may “call” a constitutional convention.  It would not be a “convention of states”, but instead it would be convened  (called) under the direction of power-brokers in Washington, D.C.

 

It is prudent to remember that the original Constitutional Convention had three essential conditions that do not exist today: 1) secrecy from the media, 2) participants who fought in the American Revolution against tyranny, and 3) George Washington presiding.  Today, instead of men of the caliber of Benjamin Franklin, we would have liberals like Barney Frank rewriting our Constitution.

Also of great concern, is that big liberal states like California and New York would have greater power at an Article V convention than most conservative states would.  Why?  Because the Supreme Court has required the “one man, one vote” rule since 1964; therefore, in calling a convention, the House of Representatives would also require voting based on population.

What are some of the myths that convention proponents are telling State Legislators?  

• States can bypass Congress in the amendment process.
• Congress will play only a ministerial role in setting the time and place of the convention.
• State make the rules for a convention, by custom, when there is no custom.
• State voting power will be “one state, one vote.”
• A “Convention of States” is an “Amendments” convention, not a “constitutional convention”, so the Constitution is not at risk.
• An Article V convention can be “limited” to a topic or set of topics.
• State Legislatures can control their delegates.
• The ratification process ensures no bad amendments will be passed.

Why a Convention of the States and a Balanced Budget Amendment is No Solution

Adding amendments to the Constitution, which is not being enforced is no solution, as no new amendments of a conservative nature would be enforced either. Should a Balanced Budget Amendment pass the convention and be ratified by the states, it will do nothing but give the big-spenders cover to raise taxes to conform to the BBA in the constitution.

The convention would neither be a ‘We the People’ convention, but instead a convention of state appointed legislators messing with our original constitution.

Instead, the focus should be on supporting Trump in his efforts to drain the swamp in Washington, D.C., which should dispel the notion that it’s necessary to tinker with our Constitution.  What could Mark Levin be thinking with his push for a Con Con?

To be rejected are the tactics of the Left that are being employed to try to pass a “Convention of States” by using secret donors and hidden agendas.  We should not allow the “bait-and-switch” tactics to prevail by pretending that an Article V Convention would result in changes in our Constitution that are pleasing. It might result in a Constitution more to the liking of those who are pushing for a Con Con, but not for those Americans who would have to live under it!  

Other Con Con articles by Nancy Thorner:

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2016/10/thorner-article-v-convention-supporters-are-delusional-new-rinos.html

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2016/10/thorner-mark-levins-case-for-an-article-v-convention-challenged-.html

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2017/01/thorner-misguided-conservatives-ramp-up-efforts-for-constitutional-convention.html#comments

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2017/01/thorner-join-the-effort-to-preserve-the-constitution.html#more

Friday, February 17, 2017 at 01:45 PM | Permalink

Thorner: 23 year old Wheeling native launches career as free market evangelist

Charlie Kirk (l) carries conservative message near and far 

By Nancy Thorner – 

Charlie Kirk and Brent Hamachek of Turning Point USA were the featured guests at a sold-out event at The Heartland Institute’s Andrew Breitbart Freedom Center on February 8 to talk about their book Time for a Turning Point, a road map on how to return to a free America, with an emphasis on reaching our youth and engaging them in the process.  

Kirk, a graduate of Wheeling High School, founded Turning Point USA (a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization) in 2012 when he was 18 years old to teach America’s youth about the free-market and small-government vision of our Founding Fathers. In just four years, the organization has established chapters on more than 1,100 high school and college campuses across America.

Now 23 years old, Kirk has appeared on Fox News, CNBC and Fox Business News more than 200 times. In addition to his entrepreneurial political endeavors, Kirk plays every type of saxophone, was captain of his school’s varsity basketball and football teams and is a proud Eagle Scout. He is now taking courses toward a college degree.

Co-author, Brent Hamachek, is a business owner, entrepreneur, Turning Point USA Advisory Council member, author of six Turning Point USA campus publications, frequent public speaker, and energetic champion of liberty. Besides being a high honors graduate from Lake Superior State University and an honors graduate from the Graduate School of Banking at the University of Wisconsin, Hamachek has also studied theology.

Kirk kicked off the event expressing his appreciation to The Heartland Institute for helping his new organization get off on the right foot. Way back in the early days of Turning Point USA, Kirk said, he needed partners in the cause. Heartland’s Joe Bast and Jim Lakely didn’t laugh at an 18-year-old kid who wanted to start an organization with the same ideals as those that were honored by The Heartland Institute: liberty, freedom, free markets, and small government. Heartland provided help with literature to distribute, encouragement and good will. This partnership is still ongoing.

Current Unrest on Campus

In light of the recent rioting at the University of California – Berkeley, and what has been occurring on college campuses all across the country since the election of President Trump, Kirk felt the urgency to speak about it. The riot at UC-Berkeley, he said, raised some big questions about the future of the free speech movement. What happened at Berkley was not an isolated incident, he said. The Left may disguise itself as tolerant, but it is not. Victimhood has become a virtue. The Left hates that alternate ideas are given any room to exist in the public square – let along that others might be receptive to them.

The night Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos arrived on campus to speak at Berkeley, 1,500 people showed up to protest. But once the sun went down, the protests turned violent, as roughly 150 black-clad, anti-fascist radicals with clubs and shields lit fires, hurled Molotov cocktails, smashed windows and caused enough of a scene to achieve their objective: deny Yiannopoulos the opportunity to spread what they view as dangerous hate speech at the university’s new Martin Luther King Jr. Student Union Center.

Did you know that last year Berkley received $134 million from the federal government, which amounts to over half of its funding? 

Kirk then spoke of how the student senate at Santa Clara University recently voted down an effort to start a chapter of Turning Point USA, marking the latest battle over free speech and tolerance on largely liberal campuses. The Associated Student Government voted Feb. 2 16-to-10 at a meeting where six Turning Point directors were present to reject the group’s bid to become a Student Recognized Organization. The perfunctory meeting turned testy when 300 students and faculty showed up to protest Turning Point USA. After Santa Clara’s decision, Kirk decried its decision on Fox News on February 2, 2017.

“If you disagree with the leftist orthodoxy, they’re just going to call you a racist,” Kirk said. “[Our] right to assemble and [our] right to free speech have been completely barred by leftists on campus that are silencing them just because they disagree.”

And what about the liberal students who couldn’t accept that Trump was elected president and are depressed? Kirk related how many college campuses offered after Trump’s election hug therapy, coloring-book therapy, pet-a-dog therapy, “cry-in’s,” hot chocolate and cookies, arts and crafts sessions, and Play-Doh to cope with student depression. Are these kids in college or in preschool? Their lack of maturity in dealing with disappointment is alarming. Yet colleges are enabling this behavior, molding a generation of wimpy kids who are unable to cope with reality.

As Kirk related, what follows are common practices that exist on many colleges and universities.

• Microaggressions, which perceive racism existing everywhere as a way to sensor speech.  

• Gender pronouns such as she and he are not permitted to be used, instead a gender neutral pronoun such as “xe” is used

• Trigger warnings could be contained in writing, in an images, or exist in concepts which could act as a trauma trigger that calls for a safe place.

• Safe places where students who are upset so they don’t have to face reality. 

Julia vs Julio, Modeled After the ‘Pencil Story’ of Milton Freeman

The stories of both fictional characters, Julia and Julio, are found in the Chapter 2, “Back to America’s Future,” in Kirk and Hamachek’s book. Kirk believes this is the most-moving and effective part of the book.

In May 2012, the Barack Obama Re-election Campaign posted on its website a slideshow titled “The Life of Julia.” Its purpose was to show how the fictional Julia would benefit from big-government programs from cradle to grave. 

Julia’s story, intended to evoke affection toward Obama and big government, didn’t move Kirk the way the campaign intended. As Kirk related in his book, “the only reason that Julia is in need of government assistance to get through her life is because government itself has so interfered with the working of free markets and has corrupted the initiative and self-confidence of its citizens.”

With this in mind, Charlie Kirk presents an alternate story about the life of Julio starting at age 5 through age 75. While Julia’s life was supported on the backs of her fellow citizens, Julio started with nothing but was able to pull himself up by his bootstraps and be a contributing member of society. Kirk warns that the choice of the kind of America we get is still in our hands.

Ending the Game of Loans (a Liability Among Singles)

Kirk gave considerable attention to the student loan crisis. An entire chapter of his book deals with the issue of the federal government holding more than 90 percent of the nation’s outstanding student loans. 

There is a vast misunderstanding of the student loan bubble, Kirk said. With an environment in which going to college is often considered necessary if a young person desires a good-paying job, a college education is encouraged and pushed – even if young people aren’t college material. This results in too many young people attending colleges and universities. 

Students will borrow money to attend college, many times those with low academic rankings. They will drop out of school, not get a good job, but will still have a pile of student debt to pay back. Blacks are especially affected by loans they will never be able to pay back, Kirk said. Many young people who borrow before accessing the real cost of their loan believe the federal government might forgive their loans at some future time.

Charlie Kirk quoted these statistics: 1) The average loan is $32,000, when the majority of young people don’t even receive a diploma. 2) 59 percent of graduates will leave college with a debt of at least $40,000. Conclusion: Telling students they need to go to college to be successful is dangerous.

As to how parents allow their children to go into debt, Charlie Kirk spoke of a culture that has become perfectly fine with debt. It’s actually a scam. The federal government – we taxpayers – give $46 billion annually to universities and colleges. There should be a law, Kirk said, stating that no dollars given by the federal government should ever be used for administrative costs – which have skyrocketed. Another law, he said, is needed to take the tax-free status away from endowments. Endowments should be used for student scholarship and finance, not to feather a university’s nest.

Charlie Kirk and the 2016 Election

Kirk said that during the 2016 Presidential election cycle he sensed a growing frustration on the part of many Americans with the general direction of the nation, due to the abandonment of the principles of free markets and limited government upon which America was founded. 

Kirk was asked to join the inner circle of the Trump campaign in the last 70 days before the November, 2016 election. He worked directly with Eric, Ivanka, and Donald Trump Jr. to attract the millennial vote. 

As Election Day drew near, Kirk was asked by Politico if Trump had any chance of winning. Charlie said he thought Trump would win Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan – and, of course, the election. The only state he left out was Wisconsin. Hamachek added that if it wasn’t Kirk’s help in getting out the millennial vote, the presidential election would have turned out differently. 

When Kirk was asked if there was a moment when he knew he wanted to do what he was now doing, he spoke of always having a passion for politics. He said he can’t remember when he didn’t want to get into a debate with his teachers. Early on, Kirk said he realized a peer-to-peer messaging system was needed. Turning Point USA was less about a movement to be created than it was about a movement that was waiting to happen.

And what a contrast between Kirk’s name recognition at the Republican Convention of 2012 and that of 2016! When attending the 2012 convention, Kirk explained it much like “there was no room in the inn.” What a contrast in 2016 when Kirk not only spoke at the GOP Convention, but he also worked for the Trump campaign.

When asked how to explain Bernie Sanders’ success among young people, Kirk attributed it partly to the lackluster appeal of Hillary Clinton. Sanders preached of the Utopia students were hearing from their professors. As to how to approach a supporter of Sanders, Kirk suggested the following strategy: Ask this question, “Do you trust government?” If the answer is “no,” then ask, “Why do you want to make it bigger?” Use that as a launching point to explain the freedom-sucking nature of big government.

Kirk said he believes that most young people would not be for socialism if they understood its ideology. Instead, they “would flee to the hills when presented with a better idea than socialism.”

In Conclusion

Many of those in attendance didn’t think it wise for conservative students to fight back against professors who use insulting and nasty rhetoric against them – which could result in suspension or bad grades. Rather, parents should step forward and make their voices heard.

Terrorists who are participating in rallies on college campuses, at airports, and at other venues throughout this nation – many who are paid professionals funded by George Soros – are using a tactic from Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.  Don’’t debate, just silence your opposition through intimidation, threats, and violence. This tactic has resulted in conservative organizations on college campuses feeling uncomfortable in bringing conservative speakers on campus to speak – and in giving voice to pro-illegal immigrant organization and individuals to rail against those who are enforcing the law to protect those who have broken the law.

Upcoming free events at The Heartland Institute.  To register, click on the title of the programs:

• Defending Free Speech
  Wednesday, February 24, 2017
  5:30 PM – 7:30 PM Arlington Heights, Illinois
  
• The Coming Death and Future Resurrection of American Higher Education
  Wednesday, March 1, 2017
  5:30 PM – 7:30 PM Arlington Heights, Illinois
  
• Collateral Damage: Forgotten Casualties of the Left’s War on Coal
• Wednesday, March 8, 2017
  5:30 PM – 7:30 PM Arlington Heights, Illinois
  
• Vaping: How Government Regulation Can Kill Innovation
  Wednesday, March 15, 2017
  5:30 PM – 7:30 PM Arlington Heights, Illinois

Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 08:33 AM | Permalink

Comments

Thorner: Gorsuch remarks raise concerns about ‘Judicial Supremacy’

By Nancy Thorner –

An Editorial in “New York Sun” on February 8, 2017, had this to say about the Gorsuch gaffe:

Talk about disheartening. That’s the word President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch, is using to describe President Trump’s remarks in respect of the riders of the 9th United States Circuit Court of Appeals. The president is upset at their politicking over his order to tighten up on immigration. Is the president’s pique so disheartening? Not to us. What’s so disheartening is to see such a promising nominee to the high court lose his bearings in a storm. (Bold type added)

The commentary goes on to muse that Judge Gorsuch’s complaint to President Trump to Senator Richard Blumenthal, whose authenticity was documented by other senators, “was a gaffe that will be seen as a failure to keep himself disentangled from political questions.”

As expressed in the “The New York Sun” commentary:

What in the world was Judge Gorsuch thinking? President Trump, in remarks to police chiefs, expressed his exasperation with the 9th Circuit’s pettifogging. The president was right and Trumansesque in the bluntness with which he made clear his views of the judges’ shenanigans. Judge Gorsuch then fetched up in the office of the senior Democratic senator from the People’s Republic of Connecticut, and starts wringing his hands about the behavior of the president who nominated him.

Might it be wise to be very skeptical about Judge Gorsuch’s conservatism, considering that graduates from elitist schools all seem to be very agreeable and “nice” to the Left?  Might Judge Gorsuch be like another Roberts if confirmed?, even though Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and other conservative Republican radio talk show hosts continue to unconditionally support Judge Gorsuch and summarily dismiss his remarks. Could it be that national syndicated radio hosts like Limbaugh, Levin, and Hannity are often pro-Establishment in their own way?  All three hosts named are supportive of convening a “Convention of States” (ConCon), which could result in a runaway Convention by those who wish to alter our Constitution

Expressed by Lou Dobbs for Gorsuch to withdraw nomination

Consider what Lou Dobbs, a well-respected host of a weekday TV business show on Fox News Business, had to say on Thursday, January 9, 2017.  Having here before been very complimentary about candidate Judge Gorsuch, Dobbs called for Gorsuch to withdraw his nomination.  In Dobb’s own words:  “Not only did Gorsuch break an ethics rule when he spoke about a political matter, but he spoke so loosely in front of his mortal, ideological enemy, that is, one senator, Richard Blumenthal.

Dobbs indicated that candidate Judge Gorsuch had shown a lack of honor, and if Gorsuch has honor he should withdraw his name out of just the pure disrespect he has shown to our President and also his lack of grace.  Dobbs concluded by saying it wasn’t smart for Gorsuch to comment as he did, as one having degrees from Harvard and Oxford.

Pat Buchanan links Gorsuch’s remarks to how Gorsuch perceives Judicial Supremacy 

Pat Buchanan’s commentary published on January 8, 2017, Trump must break judicial power, strongly advocates that “a clipping of the court’s wings is long overdue.”  Patrick J. Buchanan was a founder and editor of The American Conservative.  Buchanan served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national TV shows, and is the author of 10 books. His latest book is “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.”

As Pat Buchanan sets forth in his commentary:

“Disheartening and demoralizing,” wailed Judge Neil Gorsuch of President Trump’s comments about the judges seeking to overturn his 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. from the Greater Middle East war zones.

What a wimp. Did our future justice break down crying like Sen. Chuck Schumer? Sorry, this is not Antonin Scalia. And just what horrible thing had our president said? A “so-called judge” blocked the travel ban, said Trump. And the arguments in court, where 9th Circuit appellate judges were hearing the government’s appeal, were “disgraceful.” “A bad student in high school would have understood the arguments better.”

Did the president disparage a couple of judges? Yep.  Yet compare his remarks to the tweeted screeds of

Elizabeth Warren after her Senate colleague, Jeff Sessions, was confirmed as attorney general.

Sessions, said Warren, represents “radical hatred.” And if he makes “the tiniest attempt to bring his racism, sexism & bigotry” into the Department of Justice, “all of us” will pile on.

Now this is hate speech. And it validates Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s decision to use Senate rules to shut her down.

The Judge Gorsuch issue at hand is not as much about his loyalty to President Trump, as it is about his comment that demonstrates his support of judicial supremacy.

A pro-life nominee never would have embarrassed Trump as Gorsuch has done.  Pro-lifers recognize that the federal judiciary overreaches in its authority, as it did inRoe v. Wade with terrible consequences.  Pro-life judges understand that the federal judiciary is supposed to be the “least dangerous” branch, subject to checks-and-balances and criticism by the other branches.

Florida Supreme Court Justice Charles Canady would not have caused this fiasco.  Neither would have the other pro-life candidates, who are better qualified than Gorsuch anyway.  Gorsuch has never served in a legislature, federal or state, and his entire career is devoted to believing in judicial supremacy and stare decisis, including Roe v. Wade.  No thanks.

The Federalist Society makes millions of dollars by promoting and defending the federal judiciary.  The Federalist Society blocks pro-life judges from being nominated, and instead pushes judges like David Souter and Gorsuch who hide their pro-choice views.

George W. Bush properly withdrew his nomination of Harriet Miers.  It seems like Trump was talked into nominating a judge who is not pro-life.  It is a complete fiasco now.  Donald Trump should do as President George W. Bush did and withdraw his nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch and move on.  Otherwise the future gets only worse from here.

Other articles written by Nancy Thorner about Judge Neil Gorsuch:

Friday, January 6, 2017

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2017/01/thorner-forces-build-to-assure-trump-fills-supreme-court-vacancy-with-pro-life-judge.html#more

Wednesday, Jan.25, 2017

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2017/01/thorner-latest-contender-to-replace-scalia-judge-neil-gorsuch-is-not-pro-life.html#more

Monday, Jan. 30, 2017

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2017/01/thorner-will-trump-be-misled-to-pick-another-souter.html

Monday, February 13, 2017 at 10:09 AM | Permalink

Tags: Illinois Review

Thorner: Ed. Reform Expert Recommends Shutting Down Depart. of Education

By Nancy Thorner –

Vicki Alger, research fellow at the Independent Institute, delivered a speech at The Heartland Institute on February 1 about her new book, Failure: The Federal Misedukation of American ‘s Children. You can watch her presentation here.

Alger ‘s research at the Independent Institute focuses on education reforms that provide a competitive education marketplace and increases parental control over their children ‘s education. The author of more than 40 education policy studies, Alger has advised the U.S. Department of Education on public school choice and higher education, and has also helped to advance educational reform in her home state of Arizona.

Alger ‘s research also inspired the introduction of the most school-choice bills in the history of California, five in all. Prior to her career in education policy, Alger taught college-level courses in American politics, English composition and rhetoric, and early British literature.

Overview of Failure: The Federal Misedukation of America’s Children

As is noted on the back cover of Alger’s book:

“For nearly 100 years the federal government left education almost entirely in the hands of the citizenry and state and local governments, but in 1979, with the creation of the US Department of Education a sprawling bureaucracy with 153 programs, 5,000 employees, and an annual budget of approximately $70 billion, the federal government intruded itself into almost every area of education.”

Accordingly, Alger reveals in her book that 1) federal involvement in education has been a failure, and 2) assesses, identifies, and articulates the best strategy for success.

Alger further explains how and why U.S. students are mediocre achievers in math, science, and other subjects when compared to many other nations – despite America’s schools being the most costly in the world. In her presentation, Alger debunked the common misconception that this nation was once a world leader in elementary and secondary education. We never ranked at the top. America can’t get back to the head of the class because we never were at the head of the class. In fact, we have always scored at, or near, the bottom of the rankings. But with effective educational reforms, the academic performance of American students could improve significantly. 

For those who are advocates of school choice, Alger presents strong arguments for giving more power to parents and students.

Evolution of Department of Eduction

The original Department of Education was created in 1867 – and downsized to an office the following year – to collect information on schools and teaching that would help the States establish effective school systems. While the agency’s name and location within the executive branch have changed over the past 130 years, this early emphasis on getting information on what works in education to teachers and education policymakers continues down to the present day. 

When debate opened in the House on June 5, 1866 about a national channel of communication among school officers of different states and the federal government, there was neither mention nor desire to utilize the federal treasury to fund any educational programs. There was no hint that the department would do anything other than collect statistics. In short, the department was to be an educational statistical service located in Washington, D.C. The department, which started out with four employees, acted as a clearing house of data for educators and policymakers. 

Democratic Rep. Samuel Moulto from Illinois had this to say about his version of a Department of Education – which has come to pass in America today, but which was never sanctioned by our Constitution: 

 

“Now, sir, in order to make education universal, what do we want? What is the crying necessity of this nation today? Why, sir, we want a head. We want a pure fountain from which a pure stream can be poured upon all the States. We want a controlling head by which the various conflicting systems in the different States can be harmonized, by which there can be uniformity, by which all mischievous errors that have crept in may be pointed out and eradicated.”

 

Present-day Department of Education

 

There is no traditional or historical basis for The Department of Education. The department represents a political agenda administered from Washington DC. The department was moved here and there during its history, and went through some name changes, but in whatever form it has taken it has failed to improve education – such as in 2016, when the department spent $200 billion.

 

In 1976, presidential candidate Jimmy Carter promised to create a Department of Education, and is immediately endorsed by the National Education Association. This is first time the NEA endorsed a presidential candidate in more than a century of existence.

 

In 1979, after much opposition, Congress narrowly passed legislation to split off a new Department of Education from the existing Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The NEA and the American Federation of Teachers provided powerful lobbying support for the creation of the new department. The Department of Education began operations in 1980 with 6,400 employees. When campaigning for president in 1980, Ronald Reagan calls the Department of Education “President Carter’s new bureaucratic boondoggle” and promised to abolish it – a promise, obviously, he could not keep.

 

The Department of Education was created to improve management and efficiency, but as Alger noted in her talk at Heartland, the department represents just one more piece of government with lots of bureaucrats. By her count, Alger said just 6 percent of Education Department programs are effective. Although the department is getting more expensive to operate, children have not been better-educated after three decades of massive funding. 

 

The theme that ran throughout Alger’s book presentation was that it’s time to eliminate the Department of Education. As she remarked: “Education doesn’t get any better like a fine wine.”

 

According Alger, student achievement has been flat since the late 60s up to today. It is fair to ask how can this is so when American schools are among the most costly in the world? Yet American students experience only mediocre achievements in math and science, in contrast to students who excel in countries that spend far less per student. Alger puts some of the blame on the resistance to school choice and competition. 

 

Concern about the achievement gap in America versus other countries in the world led to the school-reform movement of the 1980s. Improving student achievement became all-important, so reforms began exploring how the federal government count partner with the states – a tactic that went against how education policy had been viewed in the past, one driven primarily by the states.

 

Standard-based Education Reform explored in the 1980’s

 

Standard-based education reform began with the publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983 which eventually led to Common Core.

 

During the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, two standards-based programs were set in motion: No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. Both program failed. Nevertheless, the Obama administration was able to sneak Common Core State Standards beneath the radar of the American people by peddling the program to states, sight unseen, through the offer of money to cash-strapped states. 

 

Ze’ev Wurman, former U.S. Department of Education official, called Common Core standards mediocre. In no way were they to be considered a proper preparation for college.

 

Alger ascribes the failure of Common Core to Obama Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, who was plucked from Chicago, where he served as superintendent of the Chicago Public Schools from 2001 to 2009. It was Duncan’s mission to eliminate the extreme variation in standards across America so this nation had only one system of learning.     

 

‘Strategic Dismantling’ of the Department of Education

 

Alger’s two-step process to eliminate the Department of Education follows: 

• Shutter up. Eliminate 19 program offices to reduce and overhaul cost. This would save $14 billion.

• Return control of managing programs back to the states, citizens, and school districts. This would save $216 billion. (Programs remain operable from three to five years. As programs expire, discontinue them.)

As related by Alger: 

 

“Schools rely on federal funding to the amount of 10 cents on a dollar. The new mandate for Common Core required more money for schools to implement than did No Child Left Behind, yet schools were told to rip up the No Child Left Behind mandate to replace with Common Core.”

 

Arizona, a Leader in Charter Schools

 

Alger was instrumental in her home state of Arizona in approving charter schools, an achievement that is now celebrating its 20th anniversary. 

 

Charters faced steep opposition in Arizona, with critics predicting doom. But the sky did not fall in Arizona because of charter schools, nor were public schools starved. Instead, Arizona has more top high schools than any other state, yet Arizona spends $5,000 less on the average than the average state. (Illinois has no top high school, other than possibly some of Chicago’s magnet schools.) Black students in Arizona, meanwhile, have made the highest math gains on the nation’s latest report card. Why should children be kept in schools that don’t work for them?

 

Alger supports publicly funded vouchers, and particularly Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), because every dollar follows the child. Algar said she has helped five states implement ESA programs directed by the state, not the federal government.

 

Q&A with Vicki Alger

 

Concerning Betsy DeVos? Vicki Alger believes Betsy DeVos, even though she endured a tough nomination fight, will be a strong leader for Trump. Hopefully, Alger said, DeVos will do away with the disaster of Common Core, which in the process will demolish the ESSA Act – through which parents are bullied and threatened about their child’s graduation unless the test associated with Common Core is taken. 

 

Concerning budget of U.S. Department of Education established in 1979? Out of the $200 billion spent to operate the department, only about 10 percent is sent back to the states. That means it takes $130 billion just to administer the distribution of money back to the states, certainly a massive political boondoggle.

 

Mustn’t some standards exist to measure how students are progressing in subject matter, although Common Core is a failure? California, Alger said, has little else going for it, but it does have a good state testing program. There is no shortage of basic state skill tests if a parent wants to know where there kids are on basic skills, but don’t trust the state to administer the test. 

 

Don’t parents want to know what their child knows at the beginning of a school year and at the end? Vicki Alger believes the focus should be more on parents having choices rather than testing standards. 

 

In closing

 

So often the battle seems insurmountable, but those of us who are sick of top-down federal control of education on both sides of the aisle outnumber those who wish to keep the status quo. 

 

Thirty-seven years after the modern Department of Education was established under Jimmy Carter, students are not better off. Now is the time to sever the partnership of education with the federal government by abolishing the Department of Education. Let President Trump and your legislators hear from you as a necessary component toward Draining the Swamp.

 

Upcoming Free Events at The Heartland Institute

•  Wednesday. Feb. 22

Defending Free Speech

5:30 PM – 7:30 PM Arlington Heights, Illinois 

•  Wednesday, March 1

The Coming Death and Future Resurrection of American Higher Education

5:30 PM – 7:30 PM Arlington Heights, Illinois

• Wednesday, March 8

Collateral Damage: Forgotten Casualties of the Left ‘s War on Coal

5:30 PM – 7:30 PM Arlington Heights, Illinois

Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 10:58 AM | Permalink

Thorner: New Trier High School to host one-sided race seminar

By Nancy Thorner with co-writer Joseph Morris –

A group of parents of New Trier (Illinois) High School students is concerned about what their teens will be taught during the forthcoming “All School Seminar Day” planned for February 28, 2017, titled: Understanding Today’s Struggle for Racial Civil Rights.  

New Trier High School is often ranked among the best in the country. It serves the prosperous suburbs north of Chicago — Wilmette, Kenilworth, Winnetka, Glencoe, most of Northfield, and parts of Glenview — an overwhelmingly white area.   The township was traditionally conservative and Republican but now leans liberal and Democratic. Its main campus for sophomores through seniors is located in Winnetka, Illinois, US, and a freshman campus in Northfield, Illinois, with freshman classes and district administration. 

A 25-page catalogue of courses, programs, seminars, and other events scheduled for the day presents a rather bold and raw effort at hard-left propaganda with decidedly anti-American, anti-free-market, anti-family, anti-parent, and bigoted biases on display.  Click here and here to learn about some of the workshops and speakers.

Below are several of the scheduled workshops and speakers

• “Whose Civil Rights?: Transpeople of Color Navigating the U.S.”: “Civil rights are social and political freedoms that everyone in our society is supposed to have access to; however, because of socialization, bias, and discrimination, many trans people (particularly trans people of color) do not have access to these freedoms. In this session, we will explore the current cultural climate that enforces a gender binary and, therefore, forecloses civil rights for many transpeople. We will examine how trans people are challenging and changing these systems.”

• “21st Century Voter Suppression”: “A group discussion about the methods and regulations used in the US to deny or limit the voting rights of various minority groups…..The main emphasis of the workshop will be how to recognize, identify, and combat modern voter suppression tactics. Attendees should come out with a few concrete plans or ideas to help address the problem moving forward.”

• “A People’s History of Chicago”: “In the tradition of Howard Zinn, A People’s History of Chicago is a poetic, progressive history that celebrates this great American city from the perspective of those on the margins whose stories are not often told.” 

As Laurie Higgins, an acclaimed writer at Illinois Family Institute, David Smith, Executive Director, further explains: “For those who are unfamiliar with Howard Zinn, he was a far Left historical revisionist who wrote The People’s History of the United States, which is used in many high school social studies classes. Eminent economist Thomas Sowell said this about Zinn’s pseudo-history book:

It speaks volumes about our schools and colleges that far-left radical Howard Zinn’s pretentiously titled book, “A People’s History of the United States,” is widely used across the country. It is one indictment, complaint, and distortion after another.  Anyone who relies on this twisted version of American history wold have no idea why millions of people from around the world are trying, sometimes desperately, to move to this country.  The one virtue of Zinn’s book is that it helps you identify unmistakably which teachers are using their classrooms as propaganda centers.”

• “Western Bias in Science”: “Newton, Darwin, Curie…Can you think of a non-European or non-American scientist in history? Come examine the western bias in science education, its sources and its implications, in this interactive workshop.

• “Developing Empathy & Acceptance by Reading Picture Books to Children”: “Come to the Northfield Library and read picture books to a group of children (ages 3-5). The picture books will focus on themes of embracing diversity…and social justice. Students will lead activities related to the books with the young children.”  As questioned by Laurie Higgins, “One wonders what picture books students will be reading to toddlers and who chose them? What forms of “diversity” will be depicted in these picture books?”

Andrew Aydin was described accordingly by Laurie Higgins as the keynote speaker at the Northfield campus. “Aydin is a policy advisor to liberal Congressman John Lewis. Aydin has contributed to the ethically impoverished Southern Poverty Law Center and the dystopian feminist comic book Bitch Planet.”

Monica Trinidad will share “her organizing work with We Charge Genocide. . . She will then lead a hands-on workshop that will guide participants through a discussion of the Black Lives Matter movement today.”  This quote about Trinidad is from Laurie Higgins:  “Trinidad is “a queer, latinx artist and organizer born and raised on the southeast side of Chicago.”

OiYan A. Poon: “Dr. Poon challenges students to critically analyze systems of higher education, student affairs practices, and to understand their power to transform oppressive structures as social justice change agents. . . Dr. Poon had received “a 2013 National Distinguished Educator award from the Pacific Education Group’s Courageous Conversations Summit.” As Laurie Higgins remarked:  “An award from the Pacific Education Group is confirmation that Poon is a Leftist.”  The Pacific Educational Group is a consulting firm committed to forging racial equity.  The PEG believes systemic racism is the most devastating factor contributing to the diminished capacity of all people, and especially people of color and indigenous people, to achieve at the highest levels.

Attributed to Laurie Higgins: The partial list of workshops offered at New Trier’s mandatory event “reveals a Leftist dream for what the Left considers education.” Instead of attending a conference based on White Privilege, “New Trier parents can just send their kids to school for the day long smorgasbord of ideologically non-diverse seminars to learn all about Understanding Today’s Struggle for Racial Civil Rights.”

Parents at New Trier express anger and outrage

It is not surprising that those on the Left are angry by the fact that parents of students attending New Trier have the audacity to object to the forthcoming February 28 “All School Seminar Day” of leftist indoctrination. This has resulted in the objecting parents and students being subjected to merciless bullying in social media and even face-to-face in school.  

Any dissent from the official line is labeled as “racist” and “privileged”; the parents’ calls for reasonable balance in discussions of such volatile issues are met with oppressive sloganeering along the lines of, “Calls for fairness and balance are themselves evidence of racism and privilege”.  The bullies wish to tolerate no dissent. The parents’ website is found here. 

The parents’ website is replete with background information on the agitprop program and some of the schemers behind it.  It contains calm and lucid information which is accurately and neutrally presented. Visitors to the site can click through to the websites of sponsoring organizations and read their propaganda and statements of their aims and worldviews in their own (vicious and bigoted) words.  One can also sign an on-line petition in support of the parents and in opposition to unfair and unbalanced programs of this kind.

Here is the latest written statement issued by parents on Monday, February 5, 2017 on its website under the heading, Parents of New Trier High who Say ‘White Guilt’ Isn’t Enough are Being Attacked.” 

While you are at the parents’ website, have a look at the “In Their Own Words” tab where you will find some examples of the bullying and some illustrations of the vicious race-hatred and political propaganda of which the “experts” invited into the school for the indoctrination sessions are capable. Visit also the “What You Can Do” tab.  Of important is that you speak out on social media and elsewhere in defense of the concerned parents and students at New Trier High Schools. 

Respectful and thoughtful participation is likewise encouraged and would be very welcome and timely on the Facebook page devoted to discussion of the New Trier All School Seminar Day (and its one-sided program of “anti-racist” and “anti-white-privilege” indoctrination).

Concerned parents organize opposition 

Betsy Hart is one of the key leaders of the Concerned Parents of New Trier. Betsy Canfield Hart, the well-known nationally-syndicated pro-family columnist, has children in the school.  

Many in education claim they desire diversity, but their actions speak otherwise, Hart explained. Regarding New Trier’s seminar, parents are not trying to shut down the February 28th seminar.  They just want a seminar that will be more challenging for kids.  As such, parents are calling for balance and diversity to bring other ideas into the one-sided program being presented at New Trier.  Parents have asked to include some topics and hire speakers of their choice, but so far requests have been denied. 

The nearby city of Chicago is literally blowing up with many people who are suffering.  Exploring how to keep kids out of gangs or a seminar program that would help involve students in inner cities ministries would be far more beneficial than asking parents and children to reflect on white privilege.

Reports about New Trier’s racist seminar have spread beyond local media attention. 

The Chicago Tribune on Monday, February 6, 2017, reprinted in the front section of its main paper a report carried over the weekend by its suburban local paper, the Winnetka Talk on the growing controversy regarding the forthcoming day-long mandatory leftist indoctrination program that will be held at New Trier Township High School, once thought to be among the best public schools in the nation but now, alas, descending into the cesspool of inflammatory racist, antisemitic, and other miasms of the ascendant academic left.  

Here is the on-line Chicago Tribune link to the report first published in its suburban local paper the Winnetka Talk over the weekend, as published in Section 1, Page 3, Column 1 of the Tribune on 2/6/2017:  New Trier High School parents debate planned civil rights seminar.  

For additional excellent insight about the upcoming New Trier’s High School’s planned “All School Seminar Day”, please check out this Monday, February 6, 2017 report by Mark Glennon’s, founder of Wirepoints:  Authoritarians at the Gate:  How One High School is Ripping Its Community Apart .

Mr. Glennon begins his article with this message: 

Not since the Vietnam War have I seen as much strife and personal hostility within an otherwise friendly community.  Thank the administration of New Trier High School in north suburban Chicago. This story is about the madness on college campuses now being crammed down into a public high school. More importantly, it’s about an angry brawl now growing rapidly.

the very latest, read the following article published February 6, 2017 at the Illinois Family Institute by Laurie Higgins:  Controversy Grows Over Imbalanced Seminar on Race.  

Will your school be next?

If you are in and around Chicago, you might wish to attend the school board meeting scheduled for Monday, February 20, 2017, at 7:00 p.m. at:  Multipurpose Room (C234), Building C, Second Floor, at New Trier High School – Northfield Campus, 7 Happ Road, Northfield.  Even if you don’t get on the agenda to speak, your presence in support of parents and students who do speak will be important and comforting against the hostility with which they are sure to be greeted.

What is happening at New Trier High School is not just an isolated incident.  Know what is happening in your own local high school.  Progressive education is now the rule of thumb in Illinois and in other states and is being supported and abetted by the Illinois Education Association. 

(NOTE: Apologies to Laurie Higgins for mistakenly failing to attribute appropriately in the original version of this column.) 

Tuesday, February 07, 2017 at 11:44 AM | Permalink

Was 2016 really the hottest year on record?

Letter to the Editor

posted: 2/3/2017 1:00 AM

Was 2016 really the hottest year on record?

• Comments
  3

A Jan. 16 front-page Daily Herald story reported that NASA and NOAA declared jointly that 2016 was the hottest year on record.

In actuality, climate change propagandists talk about the “hottest year” to distract us from the fact that their computer models are wrong by projecting a much warmer planet than real-world observations. The world simply failed to warm as they expected. Additionally, computer data is regularly adjusted by scientists playing fast and loose to assist in spinning the tale that Al Gore advanced in his documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Absent confirmation of the predictions made by Al Gore and other global warming propagandists, another narrative is called for. These facts are stubborn things to refute:

• Satellite measurements show the Earth has not experienced any significant warming since 1998

• Computer models project warming that has not occurred

• 1998 and 2015-2016 were times of naturally occurring El Niños

• If 2016 was “the warmest” year, it was so by insignificant hundredths of a degree

• The margin of error is actually a far larger one-tenth of a degree

• Temperature data adjustments by NASA and NOAA are highly suspect and not supported by satellites

• Ice, by the way, expanded in the South at the same time it retracted in the North, neither a “warming” event.

MIT climate scientist, Dr. Richard Lindzen, said of the “hottest year” claims: “The whole point is so crazy because the temperature is always going up or down a little. What is astonishing is that in the last 20 years it hasn’t done much of anything.”

Nancy J. Thorner

Lake Bluff

Add a comment…

Thorner: Was 2016 really the hottest year on record?

Letter to the Editor

posted: 2/3/2017 1:00 AM

Was 2016 really the hottest year on record?

• Comments
  3

A Jan. 16 front-page Daily Herald story reported that NASA and NOAA declared jointly that 2016 was the hottest year on record.

In actuality, climate change propagandists talk about the “hottest year” to distract us from the fact that their computer models are wrong by projecting a much warmer planet than real-world observations. The world simply failed to warm as they expected. Additionally, computer data is regularly adjusted by scientists playing fast and loose to assist in spinning the tale that Al Gore advanced in his documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Absent confirmation of the predictions made by Al Gore and other global warming propagandists, another narrative is called for. These facts are stubborn things to refute:

• Satellite measurements show the Earth has not experienced any significant warming since 1998

• Computer models project warming that has not occurred

• 1998 and 2015-2016 were times of naturally occurring El Niños

• If 2016 was “the warmest” year, it was so by insignificant hundredths of a degree

• The margin of error is actually a far larger one-tenth of a degree

• Temperature data adjustments by NASA and NOAA are highly suspect and not supported by satellites

• Ice, by the way, expanded in the South at the same time it retracted in the North, neither a “warming” event.

MIT climate scientist, Dr. Richard Lindzen, said of the “hottest year” claims: “The whole point is so crazy because the temperature is always going up or down a little. What is astonishing is that in the last 20 years it hasn’t done much of anything.”

Nancy J. Thorner

Lake Bluff

Add a comment…

Thorner: Phyllis Schlafly’s legacy honored at recent gathering in St. Louis

By Nancy Thorner –  

The late conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly left a great legacy and much work to be done. That work was the topic of discussion at this year’s Gathering of Eagles as the attendees planned for the upcoming year.

Representatives of many of organizations Phyllis founded, including her many Eagle Forum chapters, RNC for Life and America’s Future met together at Gathering of Eagles in St. Louis, MO January 26 – 28. The conference was held one block away from the Phyllis Schlafly Center in Clayton, MO, which was dedicated on Friday, January 27. 

The weekend included panel discussions on “Pro-Life Matters”; “How to Reach the Next Generation”; “Education and Abstinence”; “What DC can do for you?”; a visit to Phyllis’ home where she wrote, read, and went about her daily life; and a dedication of the Phyllis Schlafly Center with Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft. Phyllis’ life was celebrated with expressions of love which included fond remembrances by many who had been inspired and mentored by her.

What you should know about Phyllis Schlafly

Phyllis Schlafly was a national leader of the conservative movement since the publication of her best-selling 1964 book, A Choice Not An Echo, until her death on September 9, 20l7.  Phyllis was likewise a leader of the pro-family movement since 1972 through her founding of Eagle Forum, which was successful in its fight to stop radical feminists’ ultimate goal, the Equal Rights Amendment.

Phyllis Schlafly founded Eagle Forum in 1972 and named it after reading the Biblical passage Isaiah 40:31:  “But those who hope in the Lord will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be  faint.”

At a Trump rally in St. Louis, MO on March 11, 2016 Phyllis Schlafly, in keeping with her 1964 book,  A Choice Not An Echo, accordingly endorsed candidate Donald Trump.  Phyllis wrote a final book before her death six months later in collaboration with Ed Martin and Brett M. Decker, The Conservative Case for Trump.

As fate would have it, Phyllis Schlafly passed away on September 5, 2016, the day before the release of her book.  Candidate Trump attended her funeral mass at the Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis on Saturday, Sept. 10, 2016.

Celebrating Life! Dinner: Janet Porter Promotes Heartbeat Bill

One of several noteworthy events at this year’s Gathering of Eagles was the Celebrating Life! Dinner which featured Janet Porter.  Janet (Folger) Porter is the President and Founder of Faith2Action, the nation’s largest network of pro-family groups. Its mission is to win the cultural war for life, liberty, and the family.  She also hosts a 60-second daily radio commentary which airs in 200 markets, including the American Family Radio and the Bott radio network, contributes to WorldNetDaily.

Ms. Porter initiated the nation’s first Heartbeat Bill in Ohio on Feb. 2011 to legally protect unborn babies with detectable heartbeats.  This effort inspired Arkansas and North Dakota to pass Heartbeat Laws–now the most protective pro-life laws in the nation.  

While Janet Porter and Rep. Steven King were both attending the funeral of Phyllis Schlafly in St. Louis in September, 2016, Porter persuaded Rep. King to act by initiating a federal Heartbeat Bill. 

“I gave him a packet and Rep. King agreed to introduce a federal Heartbeat Bill, which would protect every baby whose heartbeat can be detected. Ninety to 95 percent of the abortions will be ended with that bill.” 

Janet Porter gave this certain and consistent marker:  It is with 96 – 97% certainty that a child will survive until a live birth when a heartbeat is heard.

Congressman King introduces Federal Heartbeat Bill

Republican Congressman Steve King, who represents the 4th District of Iowa, followed through with his promise to Janet Porter on January 12, 2017,  by releasing the following Press Release statement upon introducing “The Heartbeat Bill” that would require physicians to detect the heartbeat and prohibit the abortion of a baby with a beating heart: (HR 490, the “Heartbeat Protection Act of 2017”).   

This bill is modeled off similar legislation proposed in Ohio at the end of last year. Ohio governor John Kasich ultimately vetoed the state’s so-called Heartbeat Bill (which he said he feared might not be constitutional) in favor of a 20-week abortion ban.

Even the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that “the point at which an unborn child possesses a detectable heartbeat” is a “more consistent and certain marker than viability”—where the court allows legal protection.

H.R. 490 is now in the Judiciary Committee.  Rep. Steve King needs co-sponsors.  

Randy Hultgren as a co-sponsor (R-District 14)

Illinois Congressman Randy Hultgren participated in the 2017 March for Life in Washington, D.C. on Friday 27, 2017. Rep. Hultgren, having participated in the Washington D.C. event which celebrates life, should volunteer to become a co-sponsor of Rep. King’s bill. 

Get behind and help create a grassroots swell for Rep. King’s Heartbeat Bill – Federal HR 490. Contact Randy Hultgren and your own representative and encourage them to support the bill.

To contact Randy Hultgren:  Washington, D.C. office (202) 225-2976.  Campton Hills District Office:  (630) 584-2734 

Remember this slogan: “Heart my Heart, Save my Life”

Subsequent articles will cover other memorable events at the Gathering of Eagle, as well as one that will inform readers about the personal side of conservative icon, Phyllis Schlafly, observed from a field trip to her home and through others Eagles in attendance, some who knew Phyllis for 50 years.

Monday, February 06, 2017 at 08:00 AM | Permalink

Thorner: Trump plows ahead, as Democratic Party seeks recovery and redemption

By Nancy Thorner – 

A nation that doesn’t force foreigners to pay for the necessities of government (infrastructure, justice, and defense) is simply committing economic and cultural suicide. “Free trade” Europe outsourced its defense to the U.S.  In turn, we outsourced our defense to CHINA. Never has the security of the U.S. been so compromised with a fascist dictatorship able to wreck us economically and militarily at their will. Short of nuclear war, there really is little we can do to prevent the Chinese and their allies from seizing the rest of Asia. Even Europe seems to have a better chance of stopping Russia and the Muslims without nukes than we do with CHINA.

For this reason the Trump administration is trying to rebuild industries upon which our national defense rests. As to the reason the Trump administration is diminishing our defense commitments to Europe and the Middle East, it is because of Islam loving, undemocratic EU that China has an easy target. It is also the reason Trump chose Ted Mallochto represent the US in the European Union.

EU-despising Ted Malloch is not about to hide President Trump’s dislike for the EU. President Trump just doesn’t like the EU: “He doesn’t like an organization that is supranational, that is unelected where the bureaucrats run amok and that is not frankly a proper democracy.”

This nation obviously can’t depend on Canada for help.  According to anarticle published on January 18 by Ezra Levant, Justin Trudeau hates Donald Trump.  Trudeau’s whole team does — his MPs, his cabinet ministers, his campaign staff. They know they shouldn’t say so publicly, but they just can’t help themselves.

Neither can this nation depend on Mexico, who is an open enemy of the United States.  76,000 illegal Mexicans are incarcerated in our Federal prisons; never mind those in state prisons. American taxpayers paid approximately $1.87 billion to house imprisoned illegal immigrants in fiscal year 2014, and almost all of that financial burden was shouldered by the states.  Mexican drug gangs run amok in the U.S. and threaten to turn this nation into a narco-state as exists in today’s Mexico.

Furthermore, Muslim terror organizations have bases in the Mexican border.  But most of all, it is considered politically incorrect to acknowledge that Mexican illegals, like Muslim “refugees”, are a net minus to our society after welfare and legal system/prison payments This article is important to review.  It highlights surprising facts about IMMIGRATION ISSUES.

 

Cracking down on visas is legal 

With good reason Trump is doing something that supposedly has never been done before when the truth is quite different, cracking down on visas from Muslim countries where the threat of terrorism is high.  Having recently celebrated the 44 year anniversary weekend of Roe. v. Wade, we have the usual liberal judges legislating from the bench even though the law is quite clear that what Trump is doing with Muslim visas is quite legal.

Moreover, Trump is actually enforcing an Obama directive as to the seven countries he selected to be singled out.

“President Trump is carrying out an executive action in support of the US Customs and Border Protection Act of 2015, which relates to “the Visa Waiver Program and Terrorist Travel Protection Act of 2015“. President Trump did not select seven countries – the US Congress and Obama’s Department of Homeland Security had singled out these countries.”

Of course, none of these facts will darken the pages of the New York Times, etc.  Steven Bannon is right to call the media the major opposition party to Trump.  According the emails released by Wikileaks, 95 journalists openly consorted with the Clinton campaign against Trump. If anything, the post-election has been worse.

The problem for the Democrats and their media enablers is that the American people are sick of all these visa holders that end up in sham marriages or stay on illegally. This is a view that no amount of media bleating and staged for the camera protests can change because everyone can see the effect illegal immigration has our country and the consequences of any big group of Muslims anywhere in the world outside a few oil sheikdoms.  We are a long way from when an American president could say “Islam means peace” and have any sort of credibility.

Democrat Party without leadership dubbed hysterical

Beyond simply reality, voters can see with their own eyes where they live or on the Internet that the Democrat Party, as an opposition party, is virtually without leadership or the ability to oppose Trump without hysterical, across the board attacks that are backfiring.  Consider whatSenator Liz Warren of Massachusetts is experiencing as she aspires to lead the Democratic Party. The Bernie people rightly feel that Elizabeth Warren betrayed them by not running against Hillary and then by not endorsing Sanders. It is doubtful whether Senator Warren, as the Democratic candidate, would have any chance to be elected president in 2020.   She will most likely be fortunate to get by her own Senate reelection in 2018.

What is so unusual is that the maneuvering for 2020 is going on so early. Does somebody have a hidden agenda for DNC chairman?  Keith Ellison, as the leading contender to chair the Democratic National Committee, is from the same state as Amy Klobuchar, first woman elected to the U.S. Senate in Minnesota’s history, who also aspires to lead the party. As to another woman Democrats could possibly promote as a presidential candidate in 2020, Democrats see Jeanne Shaheen as a possibility.

If is thought that if Democrats don’t run a “minority” — women are victims, despite being 52% of the voters — how else can they win?  In looking at the extraordinary thin bench of Democrats who are presently in the Senate and also serve as governors, the best hope Democrats may have for 2020 is that someone emerges from the 2018 elections among the following14 states listed with vulnerable Republican governors.

1. Arizona (Republican Governor Ducey)
2. Florida (Term limited Republican Governor Scott)
3. Illinois (Republican Governor Rauner)
4. Maine (Term Limited Republican LePage)
5. Maryland (Republican Governor Hogan)
6. Massachusetts (Republican Governor Baker)
7. Michigan (Term Limited Republican Governor Snyder)
8. Nevada (Term Limited Republican Governor Sandoval)
9. New Hampshire (Republican Governor Sununu)
10. New Mexico (Republican Governor Martinez)
11. Ohio (Term Limited Republican Governor Kasich)
12. Vermont (Republican Governor Scott)
13. Wisconsin (Republican Governor Walker)
14. New Jersey (Term Limited Governor Christie)

 Democrat and Republican game plan for 2020

The game plan of Democrats is simple:  win about half the vulnerable Republican governor seats while holding their net Senate losses to a minimum by picking up potentially vulnerable Republican seats in Nevada and Arizona.  If they do so, it would be a huge blow to the reelection chances of Trump and for holding on to a Republican Senate with 22 Republican incumbent seats up in 2020.  However, a new Governor would not have the usual ultra-liberal track record of all the rest of the current Democrat Senators and Governors.  He/she could pretend to be “fresh” and “moderate” like Bill Clinton did in 1992.

The Republican game plan is the opposite:  pick up half a dozen or so of the 13-15 vulnerable Democrat Senate seats and hold gubernatorial losses to a minimum by picking up potentially vulnerable Democrat seats in Colorado, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, including the “Independent” governor of Alaska, a Democrat in all but name.

At this point, the Republican game plan, with Trump’s popularity improving and their money and image advantage, appears more plausible. But the Dems do have an ace in the hole in Yellen and the Democrats at the Fed.  Volcker squeezed Reagan with money policies so tight they almost destroyed Mexico and other countries in 1982.  Although Reagan did back off from his more “extreme policies” by raising taxes in 1982, which prompted Volcker to finally loosen monetary policy, Volcker’s action was not in time for the 1982 elections.

Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 01:35 PM | Permalink

Tags: Illinois Review