Advertisements

Monday, July 24, 2017

Thorner/O’Neil: Immigration: An Issue of Importance to all Americans (Part 2)

Download

By Nancy Thorner & Bonnie O’Neil –

Disagreements regarding Immigration issues have always existed; however, they have become particularly divisive recently. It is therefore wise to review our national history on the subject for more clarity as to what our wise forefathers thought on the subject.   America’s Founding Fathers did not encourage unlimited immigration, but neither did they prevent or discourage it by any federal legislation.  They believed most decisions should be left to individual states to regulate.
George Washington indicated that immigration should be limited to “useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions.”  Thomas Jefferson saw the new government as a unique combination of the freest elements of English law and political custom. He was concerned that unrestricted immigration of people from foreign lands unacquainted with the principle of representative government might undo the careful work of our Founding Fathers. “Yet,” he said prophetically, “from such we are to expect the greatest number of immigrants.”
Our ancestors wisely decided that this new “nation under God with liberty and justice for all,” would have no king and no privileged class. Their ideals, in spite of human frailty, allowed the United States of America to become a nation unparalleled by any other.  America had its challenges, such as the Civil War, but each trial seemed to strengthen
instead of harm us. America’s culture, customs, language, and laws were considered basically untouchable, but there is concern each is under assault today from foreigners who come to America for different purposes than in the past.  Many Immigrants today come out of necessity to escape poverty and terrorism; others to enjoy our prosperity, but many among them have no intention of adapting to the American way of life.  They keep their own cultures, languages, and religion.  Some even have the audacity to put pressure upon us to adopt to their ways.  This new immigrant has become a danger to America.   Therefore, it has become imperative that all Americans review our heritage to understand the reasons it must be preserved.  We the People must demand our leaders adhere to our established immigration laws, and thus avoid self-destructing through ethnic strife.

 Immigration Act of 1917

There was a need to make a change in the original law due to a surge in immigrants during 1880 to 1920, when 23,465,000 immigrants arrived,  thus doubling the total for the previous fifty years.   Concerned with this increase, Congress was prompted to pass the Immigration Act of 1917,  followed in 1921 with the nation’s first immigration law based on national quotas. A few years later, March,1924, the New York Times published an editorial which stated:

”The country has a right to say who shall and who shall not come in . .. the basis of restriction must be chosen with a view not to the interest of any group or groups in this country, . . . but rather with a view to the country’s best interests as a whole.”

Notice that the primary consideration by this Court and which was reiterated in the N.Y. Times was that immigrants were to benefit our Country, not a burden or detriment.  Immigration officials were tasked with vetting applicants based on their job skills and ability to sustain themselves in our Country.   That wise policy has gradually diminished and the once hard-fast requirements gradually began to favor the immigrant instead.  Possibly our leaders forgot how quickly once thriving nations can cease to be prosperous due to ill-thought-out changes, and that there can be unintentional consequences when we do not put Country over compassion.

A Warning to America

Consider that at the end of President Obama’s term, which allowed an unprecedented surge of unvetted immigrants, America was left with a $20 Trillion dollar debt.  How generous can our nation afford to be?  We provide for these immigrants, when most are not even willing to assimilate with our customs or people?   We are a generous nation, but there are inevitable consequences for not following reasonable laws and procedures.  Our citizens end up being the losers.

President Trump, a non-politician, became a surprise winner of our 2016 election.  How did that happen?  Voters responded to his campaign message that emphasized correcting our immigration problems and restoring our historic (Conservative) values.  He talked about putting America first. The people resonated with this message.

America’s demographics can be changed forever with little or no opportunity to reverse its course, if we continue to ignore established immigration laws.  This has never been more important because the average immigrant family produces more children than natural born American citizens. Three times as many children were born to immigrant moms in 2014 as in 1970.   In that same period, the number of children to American born moms dropped 11%.  This must be considered if we want our Country to have the same ethnic identification of our forefathers.

There were 1.8 billion Muslims in the world as of 2015 – roughly 24% of the global population – according to a Pew Research Center estimate.   However, while Islam is currently the world’s second-largest religion (after Christianity), it is the fastest-growing major religion, due to birthing far more children than Christians today. Indeed, if current demographic trends continue, the number of Muslims is expected to exceed the number of Christians by the end of this century.  Without a change in immigration procedures, there is a very real danger America will not only lose its current ethnic identity but our Christian identification as well.

European Countries Reaping Serious Consequences from Immigration Policies

Consider European countries like Germany and Sweden, both examples of accepting unprecedented numbers of immigrants, mostly Muslims.  They are already reaping serious consequences.  It has been reported that Swedes no longer feel safe in their own country.  An article written by Judith Bergman, published on July 21, 2017, went even further to question if Sweden was a failed State.

It is hard to argue with facts explaining that in 2015 only 14% of all crimes in Sweden were solved.  By 2016, 80% of police officers were allegedly considering quitting the force.  Nevertheless, Prime Minister Stefa Lofven still refuses to call this a crisis, even though Sweden now has the second highest number of rapes in the World after Lesotho in Africa.

Co-author Bonnie O’Neil spoke with three Swedish male golfers recently.  When asked their opinion about the reported rape of Swedish women by Muslim men, their comment was shocking. They lamented the dirty secret the Swedish government does not want revealed, and which the media refuses to make a priority, is that Swedish men who dare to date Muslim women are being murdered by Muslim male immigrants. Swedish officials and media sources are less than forthright in providing facts.  Apparently they are unwilling or unable to admit their generosity toward immigrants has turned out badly for their own citizens.

Although ethnic Swedish citizens have been offering information about these immigrant-related happenings, authorities ignore and even deny the problems, further announcing they are preparing for another 140,000 migrants to arrive this year, 27,000 of them underage and most of them male. A growing number of Swedes are questioning what their leaders are thinking?   This single issue has divided the Swedish population like nothing before.

Unfortunately, many of our immigration and federal officials have allowed a steady flow of unvetted immigrants into our Country, without concern that this annual tidal wave of legal and illegal immigrants endanger our way of life. A majority of today’s immigrants are (consciously or unconsciously) undermining our customs, our culture, our language, and our institutions.

It is interesting to consider Middle Eastern immigrants have neighbors who share their customs, beliefs, language, and religion, but these neighbors have not opened their doors to them.  Perhaps the reason is that unlike European countries that need replacements for their declining populations, Saudi Arabia does not; in fact these immigrants would be a burden to their people.  This might also explain why specific European countries welcomed them.  They are experiencing plunging birthrates across Europe and an aging population makes replacement migration a good option.  A U.N. document — “Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Aging Populations?” — set forth the idea of “replacement migration” in 2000.

Demographic Changes and Decline in Christianity 

The United States is experiencing demographic changes as well.  We also have a lower birthrate, largely due to the legalization of abortion on demand and women choosing careers over becoming mothers.   A 2016 seven year study showed that like Europe, America’s Christian church is also declining. The percentage of people dedicated to Christianity has changed significantly in the last 50 years, causing the religion to lose much of its influence in our everyday lives.  A Gallup survey found that 21 percent of Americans have no religious identity — up from the 15 percent of respondents who said the same in 2008. According to Christian Post, “Gallup also found that church and other religious attendance has been declining. While 73 percent of respondents said in 1937 that they were a member of a church, only 56 percent said the same in 2016.  Additionally, 72 percent of those surveyed in 2016 said that religion is losing its influence on American life.”

Perhaps this is not a good time to introduce an unprecedented number of immigrants whose religion dictates most every area of their lives and many of those dictates oppose the culture and even laws of our Country.

Although there is agreement that Europe has been badly harmed because of its out-of-control immigration, there is still time in our nation to rely on the wisdom of our forefathers, those who provided us with our established Immigration policies and laws.  It is essential we begin again to strictly enforce them.  The consequences of not doing so opens America to the possibility of suffering the same consequences we see in Europe; empty churches, cultural changes, and terrorist attacks by those who interpret the Koran as a mandate for jihad.

Abraham Lincoln was asked if he believed that God was on the union’s side during the Civil War.  His response is as appropriate today as it was then:

“Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.”

President Trump’s rousing Warsaw speech on July 6, 2017 appropriately called for a return to our Christian roots:

“Only if the West returns to God, and only if the West chooses to defend its heritage, and traditions, and the dignity of every human life — only then can the enemies at the gates be beaten back.”   

These are great quotes but until “we the people” stand up and demand our Immigration laws be strictly enforced and our Christian heritage protected, we cannot expect our leaders to know our firm commitment to keep America the Country our forefathers wisely provided for us.

 

Amerisleep-avoid-nightmares-better-sleep

My brief experience as a left-leaning, radical liberal feminist came about quite unexpectedly when in a dream I found myself rallying with other feminist radicals, holding a pink sign that read, “I stand with Planned Parenthood,” and making demands that Trump make federal payments to Planned Parenthood.

By Nancy Thorner –

When the word “Liberal” comes to mind, unknown to many is that the word has a proud heritage.  Originally it was a word that described men who were political opposites of modern “Liberals.”

The word “liberal” derives from the Latin word for “free.”  As to how the word “liberal” acquired its change of meaning:

The early liberals worked for freedom from burdensome and oppressive old laws and regulations. Liberalism meant action. The ideal of change toward increased freedom and modernity drifted into accepting change almost for its own sake — or so I conjecture. Many conditions in the world plausibly seemed open to improvement — even in the liberal direction — by changing or adding some laws and regulations.

Leland B. Yeager in his post on March 9, 2011, Reclaiming the Word “Liberal”, proposed calling left-liberals what they really are, without qualification, to reclaim the original name of an honorable and old political tradition in the classical sense of the word as a way to align its usage in the U.S. to what exists in much of the world outside the U.S. As such, Classical liberalism “is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade. Up until around 1900, this ideology was generally known simply as liberalism.”

The Liberals of the 19th century would be aghast over the outrageous corruption and modern use of the word “Liberal” in respect to how modern liberalism is perceived, which seeks to promote, advocate, and enforce the centralization of all political power into an all-powerful central government.

My brief experience as a left-leaning, radical liberal feminist came about quite unexpectedly when in a dream I found myself rallying with other feminist radicals, holding a pink sign that read, “I stand with Planned Parenthood”, and making demands that Trump make federal payments to Planned Parenthood.

Those who know me would realize the absurdity of that dream, as a staunch Republican conservative my entire life, but I did wonder briefly what it would be like to be a liberal in today’s sense of the word.

A few days later, on July 9, 2017, as a subscriber to Burt Prelutsky’s three to four weekly subscription articles, I received an astute and witty commentary, LIBERALS: EVIL OR JUST STUPID?, in which Mr. Prelutsky likewise speculated on what it would be like to be a member of the Left.  (Mr. Prelutsky’s new subscription year starts at the end of August at an annual cost of $150.  CLICK HERE for a direct feed to Burt Prelutsky if interested in subscribing.)

 Who is Burt Prelutsky?

Burt Prelutsky is an extremely gifted CA writer who was born in Chicago in 1940, but was raised in CA when his family moved to CA in 1946.  Burt’s home is in North Hills, CA (the San Fernando Valley), where he lives with his wife, Yvonne, and dog, Angel   Highlights of his Prelutsky’s career include:  Film Reviewer for Los Angeles Magazine, 1959-1971; Weekly Humor Columnist for L.A. Times, 1967-1978; Freelance for TV Guide, NY Times, Holiday, Emmy, Sports Illustrated, 1965-1990; TV Credits: Dragnet, McMillan & Wife, MASH, Mary Tyler Moore, Rhoda, Bob Newhart, Family Ties, Dr. Quinn, Diagnosis Murder+ 5 TV movies; Blogger: Patriot Post, Breitbart, WorldNet Daily, BernardGoldberg.com; Political Pundit 2000-Present (over 2100 political articles);  Author (8 books), Angels on Tap has been made into a major motion picture.

Following are excerpts from Burt Prelutsky’s commentary, LIBERALS: EVIL OR JUST STUPID?:

There are times when I try to imagine what it must be like to be a member of the Left.  But no matter how hard I try, I find I simply can’t bring it off.  Instead, I wind up marveling at their ability.

I mean, there are so many things they have to believe that simply aren’t true and to doubt so many other things that are factual.

For openers, they’re required to believe that America is not only not superior to other nations, but is in a great many ways inferior.  They have to accept that whereas those who espouse the values of Christianity and Judaism are superstitious bigots, whereas those who pray to Allah are noble in their natures and their spiritual aspirations.

They have to accept the lie that cops, including those who are black, are violent racists, but those who demonstrate in the streets and call for the killing of cops are not.

They are also required to believe that conservative speakers are fascists and should therefore not be permitted to express their opinions on college campuses, whereas those who shout them down and torch buildings in displaying their contempt for the 1st Amendment are to be regarded as defenders of the truth.

In similar fashion, they are called upon to side with terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, jihadists who openly call for the genocidal extermination of Jews, while labeling Israel, a western-style democracy, as the latter-day version of Nazi Germany.

Their ignorance is so vast and their reliance on propaganda so absolute that they not only had no trouble accepting the lie that Trump is Putin’s puppet, but ignored the fact that Hillary Clinton turned over a quarter of America’s uranium deposits to Russia in exchange for a massive bribe to the Clinton Foundation and that Obama, after promising Putin to be more flexible after the 2012 election, then stood idly by while Putin invaded Ukraine and Syria.

They have also chosen to ignore John Podesta’s financial ties with Russia while hyperventilating over Michael Flynn’s accepting a check from Turkey.To further establish their fidelity to left-wing nuttiness, they have to pretend that the pampered propagandists at the NY Times, the Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC, are objective reporters whose sole allegiance is to the truth, crass partisanship be damned, and that ObamaCare has been anything but an unmitigated disaster.

Speaking of which, they not only had to overlook Obama’s promise that his radical healthcare bill would allow people to retain their doctors and their current policies if they were happy with them, but the fact that the Democrats in Congress who shoved the rancid bill down our throats saw to it that they didn’t have to depend on it for their own healthcare needs.

Even their credulity must be strained to the breaking point when they’re expected to ignore basic biology and promote the absurd fiction that gender is nothing but a matter of opinion.  Or, for that matter, feel compelled to ignore the inconvenient truth that 20 years after Al Gore sounded the climate alarm, none of the nightmarish scenarios he predicted have come to pass.

Something else that liberals never stop chattering about is something called income inequality.  The amusing part of that is that those doing most of the chattering — people like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, Maxine Waters and Chuck Schumer — are all multi-millionaires who have never done an honest day’s work in their entire lives.

And when it’s not the career politicians doing the yammering about the great financial divide, it is cable news hosts who pull down millions of dollars a year for insulting President Trump or the privileged snowflakes at places like Yale, Harvard, Middlebury and Cal Berkeley, where the yearly tuition dwarfs most people’s annual income.

Because they have no idea what they’re squawking about, and lack the motivation to question their own privileged status, they never stop to consider the reasons for income inequality or even the dire consequences of arbitrarily raising the minimum wage to, say, $15-an-hour.

Further enlightenment into the mindset of Liberals

Family Guardianship Fellowship has come forward with 60 Hard Truths about “Liberals”Number one follows:

At the most basic level, the Liberal is anti-God. He is an intellectually dishonest, unprincipled, mentally immature, spoiled child who is forever in search of a world without moral consequence. That is why the Liberal makes “The State” his god. The Liberal worships THE STATE. The Liberal attempts to use his god (government) to eliminate all moral consequences for immoral behavior. In the name of “Justice,” the Liberal also pretends to make his god (The State) “level” all peoples so that the wise or the beautiful or the genius will have no advantage over the unwise, the ugly and the simpleton in the marketplace. The Liberal calls this tyrannical State of Government, UTOPIA.

For additional information to clarify your thinking, check the e-book written by Ludwig Von Mises entitled “Liberalism”, which was published 5/21/1927.  Ludwig von Mises was the acknowledged leader of the Austrian School of economic thought, a prodigious originator in economic theory, and a prolific author.

Another excellent article by John Hawkins features 20 Hypocrisies of Liberalism.   Hawkins states as his #1 liberal belief:

It’s impossible to come to any sort of reasonable compromise with conservatives on anything, but that we can fix our problems with nations like Iran and North Korea by just sitting down and talking things out.

This commentary written almost 10 years ago by John Hawkins (September 21, 2007), Explaining Liberal Thinking In A Single Column, deserves a thorough reading.

Following is the first paragraph of Hawkins’ article to whet your appetite.

Liberals love to think of themselves as intellectual and nuanced, but liberalism is incredibly simplistic. It’s nothing more than “childlike emotionalism applied to adult issues.” Very seldom does any issue that doesn’t involve pandering to their supporters boil down at its core level to more than feeling “nice” or “mean” to liberals. This makes liberals ill-equipped to deal with complex issues.

Also check out Jim Hawkins’ book, 101 Things All Young Adults Should Know, available at Amazon.com. Gleaned from a lifetime of trial, error, and writing it down, Hawkins provides advice everyone can benefit from in short, digestible chapters.

Schlafly-trump-575x354

By Nancy Thorner – 

Donald Trump is the most powerful man in the world, so technically, the U.S. Presidency is the “Most Powerful Office in the World.”  But what if you were told of another public office that (ultimately) chooses who will be President and virtually every other elected official in the U. S.?  If that were true, wouldn’t that office (ultimately) be the “Most Powerful Office in the World”?

Conservatives take pride in their knowledge of the Constitution and the outward forms of American Government. Many can quote the Founding Fathers, such as, “The least governed are the best governed” (Jefferson) and “Government is like fire, a useful servant but a deadly master” (George Washington), etc., but the bottom line is, many conservatives know next to nothing about the real system of American government, which isn’t the fairy tale that has been taught in school and colleges over the past few decades.

 

If you are tired of seeing things continue to go down the drain, it is essential that you understand how liberals dominate our government.  Madigan’s budget deal was the straw that broke camel’s back for many conservatives.

What might be done to salvage Illinois after ten Republicans joined Madigan and 60 other Democrats in voting for a permanent, 32 percent income tax increase and 33 percent corporate tax hike, when Illinois residents already shoulder the heaviest local and state tax burden in the country?

Irresponsible is that a three-fifths majority of state lawmakers, including Republicans, sold out their constituencies to reward the special interest groups (public employee unions, trial lawyers and other political insiders) that have been paying to keep them in office for decades.

Understanding the seven laws of American government, set forth in an essay by Phyllis Schlafly in the early 90’s — The Most Powerful Office in The World Is NOT The President of the United States! — is essential to change Illinois from a failed state to one that will live up to its potential, where people feel proud to live and work and where businesses can grow and prosper.  The lack of good people at the grass roots is why we get so many bad apples that call themselves “Republicans”.

E-mail Andy Schlafly to order copies of Phyllis Schlafly’s article.

Phyllis Schlafly (August 15, 1924 – September 5, 2016) was a founding member of the modern conservative movement. She was described by the New York Times as the “one of the most relentless and accomplished platform debaters of any gender to be found on any side of any issue.”

Following are excerpts from Phyllis’ article, which is as powerful today as it was back in the early 90’s:

1.  To change things, you have to change the law. 

Are there things about our country you want to change? Taxes? Deficits? Schools? Crime? Abortion? Gay rights? Government funding of anti-social projects? Government over-regulation of business?

Are you satisfied with the way the present Congress is raising our taxes, spending our money, and reducing our liberties?

Our Constitution makes Congress the most powerful branch of government. It can pass laws, impose taxes, and spend our money. State Legislatures are powerful, too, especially over public schools.

2.  To change the laws, you have to change the people who make them.

Congress and the State Legislatures pass thousands of laws every year. No citizen or group can possibly read them all, research them to find out their effect in advance, or alert their friends to go into action with letter-writing and phone-calling. Congressmen and state legislators who have been elected by liberal and anti-family groups will not be receptive to your messages anyway.

If you want to change the laws or taxes, you must elect representatives you can reliably count on to vote conservative and pro-family all the time.

3.  To be elected, your candidate must be on the ballot. 

How often have you voted for “the lesser of two evils” when you didn’t like either of the two candidates running for an important office? Have you ever wondered why, despite the rhetoric, both candidates seem to back the same anti-conservative, liberal and anti-family agenda? How many times is a good conservative, pro-family candidate not even on the ballot?

4.  To get on the ballot in a general election, you have to be nominated for an office in a Party Primary Election or Convention. 

The winners in the Party Primary or Convention will be the candidates who appear on the ballot in November. Except in very rare cases, all candidates must first win a Party Primary or Convention. Write-in campaigns are theoretically possible, but they rarely succeed. Third-party candidates are theoretically possible, but unless a candidate has as much money as Ross Perot, running as a third-party candidate probably won’t be successful and the votes may not even be counted or reported

5.  Candidates endorsed by the Party usually win the Primary Election. 

Most voters don’t investigate the Primary candidates, or even find out who they are. Sometimes, many candidates run in the Primary for nomination to the same office and the voters are confused. Only a small minority of Americans vote in Primary elections. One of the reasons for the small turnout in Primary elections (in addition to voter apathy) is that you usually must declare yourself a member of one Party or another in order to vote in the Primary. Primary Election rules vary from state to state, but in most states, in order to vote in a Primary you either have to pre-register as a Republican or a Democrat OR ask for a Republican or a Democratic Party ballot on Primary Election day.

6.  Primary endorsements are often made by the Party’s “County Committee” (or Township Committee, etc.), which is elected by the Precinct Committeemen of the Party. 

Each political party has national state, county, township, and (in the big cities) ward organizations (usually called committees or central committees). The county and township committees frequently endorse candidates in the Primary, and that endorsement is often the key to a Primary victory.

7.  It’s easy to be elected a Precinct Committeeman. 

The way you get elected a Precinct Committeeman is usually very simple. In a typical state, you can call your county clerk and get the necessary forms, get ten of your friends to sign a Petition requesting that you be on the ballot in the primary.

As a typical county may have dozens of precincts without any Precinct Committeeman because no one has bothered to run, it is sometimes easy to be appointed to one of these positions by calling your Party Chairman. Many precincts have do-nothing Committeemen who can easily be defeated because they don’t do their job.

To be remembered (Phyllis continues):

  • To change things, we must change the laws.
  • To change the laws, we must change the people who make them.
  • To get elected, your candidate must be on the ballot.
  • To get on the November ballot you must win the Primary.
  • To win the Primary, you must get the support of people who make endorsements in the Primary, who reliably vote in the Primary, and who get out the vote of others in the Primary. Those people are the Precinct Committeemen.

Therefore, Precinct Committeeman is the most powerful office in the world because Precinct Committeemen determine who gets the chance to be elected to office at every level of government. Remember, if your candidate is not on the ballot, he will not be elected.

Duties of the Precinct Committeeman

The Precinct Committeeman is the person who is legally charged with getting out the vote on election day. If he does his job well, he will ring the doorbell of every household in the precinct and ask polite questions to find out the Party and other political views of every voter. (That’s called canvassing.) Then, before each election, the Precinct Committeeman will personally deliver campaign literature (such as a marked sample ballot) to every voter who is expected to vote for your Party or candidate. Then the Precinct Committeeman makes sure that all his voters get to the polls on election day. This is the way elections are won.

Powers of the Precinct Committeeman

  1. Friendly access to neighbors. Most people are eager to know more about their government and the people who run it. When you introduce yourself as their “Republican Precinct Committeeman,” they assume you have something to say. You can provide them with information on candidates and issues. Of course, you don’t waste your time on those who would rather get their information from the Precinct Committeeman of the other Party.
  2. Respect from elected officials. Since a Precinct Committeeman represents, on average, 500 voters, and has the power to vote for other Party officials and to make endorsements of candidates, any call or letter from a Precinct Committeeman gets the attention of elected officials.
  3. Launching pad for other offices. You would be amazed at how many of our Presidents, Senators, Congressmen, and state and local officials started as Precinct Committeemen, and still serve as Precinct Committeemen even though they hold a higher elected office. That’s because they know the power of a Precinct Committeeman.
  4. Direct influence over Party Platform, policies, and selection of candidates. At state, district, county, and township caucuses and conventions, the Precinct Committeeman is an active player. He can have a tremendous influence on the adoption of the Party Platform and policies, support of or opposition to issues, and selection of candidates.

End of Phyllis Schlafly excerpts

Lake County where Nancy Thorner lives, is typical among U.S. counties. 25-50% of the committeeman spots of the dominant party are normally “vacant”. In these precincts, if you get on the primary ballot with no primary opponent, the only way you can lose is an opponent with a very hard write-in campaign. In the other 50-75% of precincts, you will probably have to oust an incumbent committeeman (sometimes they withdraw rather than fight). But most incumbent committeemen are patronage hacks who do little besides drop off party literature and endorsements. (When was the last time any committeeman came to your door?). $50 for literature, a few weekends visiting the hundred or so homes that might vote in your party’s primary and any dedicated conservative can win.

For Illinois outside Cook County:  call or go to the Internet site of your County Clerk for your party’s nominating papers and filing rules for precinct committeeman. Also get a list of your precinct’s voters. Filing deadline is 90 days before the primary. Try to file the first minute possible to get the advantageous first ballot position. File at least 15 signatures to avoid challenges that knock your off the ballot. You need a minimum of 10 primary electors of your party (primary electors of the party are people who voted in your party’s primary in previous elections.) After filing, print a campaign leaflet that you can leave if people are not home with your name, address, phone number, job description, family picture, anything you have done for your neighborhood and your party. Then concentrate on meeting in person the voters of your party that live in your precinct.

 

Bruce Rauner2_17

By Nancy Thorner – 

John Kass calls it “The Combine”, others call it the Illinois Uniparty. But it’s obvious both parties in Illinois love to raise taxes and spend more money. In 1969, Republican Governor Ogilvie created a 2 1/2% income tax (he asked for a 4% rate initially) and helped ram through a new Illinois Constitution to make sure it would stay in place as constitutional. This is the same Constitution the Illinois Supreme Court says mandates absolutely no changes in Illinois’ outrageous government pensions.

But Dick Ogilvie and his Republican party paid the price in the next elections, so the income tax rate stayed the same except for temporary tax increases under Republican Jim Thompson until it was permanently hiked to 3% in 1990, as Thompson was retiring. The next income tax hike to 5% under Democrat Governor Quinn created such a backlash that it was obvious Quinn was likely to lose in 2014.

Enter Bruce Rauner, political unknown in 2013. Rauner made his money as a pay-to-play (especially to Democrats) manager of government pension funds.

Rauner also had extensive ties to Mayor Emanuel over several decades:

Rauner made it plain he was an extreme social liberal, but many “fiscal conservatives” in the Republican Party ignored all the signs he was a Democrat liberal masquerading as a Republican. The only fiscal conservatism they were interested in was the money and jobs a “winner” like Rauner would bring them.

After record election spending promising to pound Springfield politicians “like a pinata”, Rauner spent his time as Governor giving the same campaign speeches and ads on trivial issues to the voters like term limits and workman’s compensation.

Following the disastrous for Illinois Republican 2016 November elections that saw most of the major Illinois Republican officeholders from Rauner on down denounce their own presidential candidate, Rauner suddenly added a property tax freeze, but continued to emphasize term limits. This was a huge signal that Rauner was ready to cave on taxes in return for some fig leaf of “reform” like a property tax freeze that was sure to be rolled back after the 2018 election.

If Rauner wanted plans to really balance the budget, if he really wanted examples of waste and abuse that he could bring up every day when the legislature was in session, there were plenty of groups like the Illinois Policy Institute to help him.

An Illinois Senator on the job for only nine months, Dan McConchie, proposed as easy to sell and understand plan to balance the budget without new taxes along with his fellow Senator Kyle McCarter. This was after Rauner said he was “flexible” on the budget and did not condemn outright all the plans for hiking the income tax to 5%. Rauner could have made the very easy to understand point that hiking the income tax to 5% was tried in 2011 but the pension deficit and unpaid bills both grew by billions as businesses and high income taxpayers left the state to create the worst state economy in the U.S. Instead he spent millions basically recycling the same ads he used in the past.

Now we have the grandest political kabuki theater in Illinois history. Over a holiday weekend so the voters can’t lobby and object, after the budget deadline so Republicans have to be added to get a 60% bipartisan vote, and now facing threats the bond agencies will make Illinois the first junk-rated state in the country, fifteen “Republicans” (Andersson, Bryant, Cavaletto, Davidsmeyer, Fortner, Hammond, D. Harris, Hays, Jimenez, Meier, B. Mitchell, Phillips, Pritchard, Reis, Unes) voted for a massive income tax increase. This allowed 10 vulnerable Democrats to vote no: Connor, Costello, Halpin, Manley, Mayfield, Moylan, Mussman, Scherer, Stuart, Yingling. The end result was 72 votes for a tax increase, one more than needed, so no single state rep would be “the vote that raised your taxes.”

In addition to the $5 billion tax increase, the Illinois House also passed a $36 billion spending plan which came in the form of a 638 page amendment to Senate Bill 6. This budget had no reforms or meaningful spending cuts; however, it was passed 81-34 with even more Republican support despite nobody having enough time to find out what was actually in it.

At this point, Governor Rauner could have said:

“On Wednesday July 5, I will be spending millions in ads and phone calls in key districts urging state legislators to uphold my veto of these tax and spending increases that will do nothing to solve the deep structural problems of the state that I promised to change. I hope by the time I formally veto these bills on Monday July 10, enough legislative members will have changed their mind and uphold my veto. I will then keep the legislature in session until meaningful reforms and budget cuts are made so our state doesn’t continue to have the worst economy in the nation.”

The fix is now in, unless something changes in the next day or so. Rauner will pretend to have fought things with his veto, just like Illinois “Republican” House leader Jim Durkin who voted against the tax increase, but also voted for Madigan’s initial budget with a 5 billion deficit and no structural reform. (SB 6, Second Reading, Amendment 2). Bill Brady, the “Republican” Senate leader, can’t even pretend to be against raising taxes after proposing a 4.95% income tax rate earlier this year.

Whether he runs again or not, Bruce Rauner and the legislative leaders that allowed Madigan’s most vulnerable members to skate have doomed the Illinois Republican party to defeat in 2018; however, Rauner’s pension business and all the other loot Illinois politicians make off our government will be safe. And that was the reason Rauner ran, to force the state to have a big, “bipartisan” tax hike to keep things exactly the same – something another Republican beating Quinn might have changed.

After the Democrats sweep happens in 2018, Democrats will propose their ultimate solution—a constitutional amendment to allow a graduated income tax to fund a property tax “freeze” (with major loopholes, of course) until after the next gubernatorial election.  As after their 2010 victory over another “Republican” Trojan Horse, Bill Brady, the Democrats will have total power to gerrymander Illinois districts so Madigan will continue to reign another decade unless he faces eternal judgment. Illinois will become a one party dictatorship, like California, but without the good weather.

This is the result of over 50 years of Chuck Percy, “Me, Too But Slightly Less” tax and spend Illinois “Republican” leadership that has been tolerated by Illinois Republican Primary voters.

The sad thing is that we can’t be sure these same primary voters won’t return Bruce Rauner, and all “Republicans” who voted for Madigan’s budget and tax increases, to “oppose” Madigan’s Democrats. They fell for the lies of Bruce Rauner in 2014, and they could do the same thing in 2018 before Rauner, who has behaved as a Trojan Horse for the Democrats,

goes back to living off the taxpayers with his pension business.

Friday, June 30, 2017