Thorner/Weyermuller: Illinois conservatives prepare to resist Left’s Stranglehold

By Nancy Thorner (photos by Mark Weyermuller) – 

Illinois is facing tremendous challenges as corrupt and incompetent leadership is leading many good people to to take flight from this state. It would not be out of line to call what has been going on in Illinois politics for the past 40 years as pure evil. For too long little has been done to stop it.

Common sense does indicate that the righteous anger felt by many conservatives must be channeled into a common mission to fight back against those whose moral values do not reflect our values and for whom financial restraint is not a part of their lexicon.

Illinois Conservatives United is a coalition or grassroots activists (whether solo or if you lead a group or organization) who desire to join with other grassroots conservative activists throughout Illinois for the purpose of making an impact on key state-wide issues. The coalition’s first key issue is to ensure election integrity to Illinois by forming and training teams from around the state to clean up voter rolls statewide.

This training took place over a two-day event, Strategy 2017: From Outrage to Action, on Friday, August 18 and Saturday, August 19, 2017 in Elmhurst. During the two-day conference many friendships were formed with fellow warriors who can now spur each other on to winning victories for Illinois in 2018.

The Conference officially began on Friday, August 18 with a 12 pm buffet Lunch, during which time participants had an opportunity to check out the seventeen exhibitors. Conference sponsors included Illinois Review, Freedom Works, The Heartland Institute, Illinois Family Action, and American Majority.

 
Organizers Jan Shaw, Carol Davis, Jane Carrell – Keynote Speaker C.L. Bryant

Friday Afternoon

The Friday afternoon sessions were devoted to Campaign Support Training led by James Marter, former Candidate, U.S. Senate; Matt Batzel, National Executive Director of American Majority; and Lonnie Leitner, Chief of Staff of American Majority. American Majority has been training conservatives to run and win since 2008 and offers online or in-person training to give leaders and individuals running for office the necessary tools to run winning campaigns all over this nation, whether it be for school board or Congress.

For direct access to the excellent American Majority Friday afternoon presentations containing full transcripts and slides to download showing how to organize and run a winning campaign from start to finish, click on the sites below as provided by Matt Batzel, National Executive Director of American Majority. The sites are invaluable to those who are managing campaigns for Conservatives candidates to replace Republican legislators who have indicated they will not run again after voting with Democrats to increase taxes, as well as those managing campaigns to defeat Democrat incumbents.

To learn more about American Majority’s On-line courses go here.

On how to tell your story in a way that appeals to the head and the heart, to bring about meaningful change in your community and the country watch American Majority’s Youtube Video.

This site can serve as a tremendous Resource page for downloading “Your Campaign and Activism Toolbox” and for “Campaign Resource.”

 

Saturday Conference Schedule

The Saturday Conference Schedule was a day-long event starting with a Continental Breakfast between 7:30 and 8:30 p.m., and closing with a Dinner featuring Emily Stack and Rev. C.L. Bryant.   Rev. Bryant is recognized as one of Americas most Dynamic Orators and he is a highly sought after Speaker, Motivator, Activist, Organizer, Gospel Preacher. Bryant is the D.C. Senior Fellow at FreedomWorks.  Rev. Bryant didn’t disappoint as he delivered his words with fiery passion to those assembled eager to hear his message.

Featured early in the Saturday morning session was Catherine Engelbrecht of True the Vote. True the Vote (TTV) is a conservative vote-monitoring organization based in Houston, Texas whose stated objective is stopping voter fraud. The organization supports voter ID laws and trains volunteers to be election monitors and to spot and bring attention to suspicious voter registrations that its volunteers believe delegitimize voter eligibility.

The organization’s tag line is “If you see something at the polls that just doesn’t seem right, record it.Catherine Engelbrecht is the current president of TTV. Her message was well received given the amount of voter fraud that is happening throughout this nation.

Here in our own state of Illinois, a welcome sign and a way for illegals to vote represents a Leftist ideology that supersedes all else.

While the morning Saturday sessions were all about Election Integrity, the afternoon sessions highlighted

Tools for Activists in getting out their message. Featured speakers were Jim Lakely, Dr. Tim Huelskamp,

The Heartland Institute; James Marter, Matt Batzel, Social Media: How to the the Digital Activist Every Movement Needs ; Carol Davis, “Lightning Round: Solutions”; David Smith, Illinois Family Institute; John Kraft, Edgar County Watchdogs; Heidi Holan, Homeowners Defense Association, Brandi McGuire, Local Government Information Services; Walsh Freedom, Dr. Jordan Peterson, Higher Education (video); and Jim Muratori, Vickie Deppe, Veronica Harrison, Article V Convention of States, about which there exists formidable opposition in going forward with an Article V Convention of States.

Organizers of the Conference

Following are organizers of the second Strategy conference who deserve much praise for all their hard work, time, and effort it took to provide a venue for grassroots activists to join together to avail themselves to the tools that are necessary to fight back against the forces in Illinois, which, left unchallenged, will only mean that Illinois will slip further into the abyss of no return as an officially recognized failed state.

• Lyn Beets, Northern Illinois Tea Party
• Jane Carrell, Northern Illinois Tea Party
• Carol Davis, West Suburban Patriots
• Linda Iverson, Huntley Tea Party
• James Marter, Former Candidate, U.S. Senate
• Loretta Savee, Northern Illinois Tea Party
• Jan Shaw, West Suburban Patriots
• David Smith, Illinois Family Action
• Claire Van Horn, DuPage Tea Party

Exhibitors not aligned with featured speakers

Illinois Review, Illinoisreview.com; Mendrick for Sheriff, James4sheriff.com; David Shestokas, J.D.Author, david@shestokas.com; Turning Point U.S.A., tpusa.com; and Vitual Agora, thevirtualagora.com.

 

Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 11:00 AM | Permalink

Thorner/O’Neil: Powerful ‘Resistance’ forces determined to “Destroy Trump”

By Nancy Thorner & Bonnie O’Neil – 

Has there ever been a time in America’s history when leaders of the losing party plotted and executed a plan to destroy our President even before he officially took office?

The election of President Trump on November 9, 2016, immediately triggered such an unprecedented action, perpetrated by specific powerful Leftists. This was done blatantly and aggressively in plain sight and the perpetrators call their effort “The Resistance.”

If this had been initiated a year after President Trump took office and there were obvious, verifiable reasons for such an effort, it might have some credibility. That is not the case. Instead, this “Resistance” effort began way before Trump was given a chance to prove himself capable of the position. Additionally, the “Resistance” effort is well funded and has the help of many like-minded Leftist groups, Democrat officials, and a willing Leftist national media that thrives on controversy.

Established principles have been abandoned by this “Resistance” and replaced with what some consider treasonous actions intended to destroy our duly elected President. Sadly, the mainstream media appears to be aiding and abetting them.  This is the same media who jealously protected Obama and Hillary, thus it is not a surprise they have chosen to work with the “Resistance” against President Trump. Apparently these people are unconcerned as to the potential harm their nefarious efforts create for our Country. We all may suffer consequences of their unprecedented actions, as they threaten our Constitution, our nation’s reputation, further elections, and America’s future.

Donald J. Trump is a successful businessman, not a career politician, which was one reason many voted for Trump in deference to one of the other Republican presidential candidates. Trump represented a stunning repudiation of career politicians and a call for a different direction than that of the Obama administration. This election proved our citizens to be more concerned with a vibrant economy than the Democrat’s social ideals and a one-world-government approach that would smother American patriotism.

Leftists shocked over Trump’s election

Can you imagine how totally shocked Democrats were when the election proved the majority of our voters were not fooled by the Left’s tactics to protect Hillary? Politicians and the media underestimated the American voter’s intelligence, but more shocking yet is that they are not yet willing to abide by the election results on November, 2016. Their continual efforts to daily malign, marginalize, and destroy Trump’s presidency, which is joined at the hip by the unprecedented “Resistance” movement likewise conniving to topple the current Administration and President Trump, would border on treasonous behavior at other times in this nation’s history when the rule of law was respected on both sides of the political spectrum.

Laura Hollis, associate professor of teaching, Department of Accountancy at Mendoza College of Business, and concurrent associate professor of law at Notre Dame Law School, wrote this thoughtful article on the subject of why our new President is being unduly harassed, Socialism’s failures and the war on Trump, published on August. 10, 2017. Hollis sets forth an interesting opinion based on the facts surrounding the unprecedented backlash Trump has faced.

I am increasingly of the opinion that the basis for the inflamed, visceral hatred of President Donald Trump in some quarters is neither his occasional vulgarity, nor his propensity to toss out “un-presidential” insults, nor the “misogyny” and “sexism” the left pretends to see in his every word.

Rather, it’s that his presidency has torn the veil off of the left’s inexorable and – until recently – largely obscured march toward a socialist America. Trump has exposed and discredited many of the institutions and mechanisms the left uses to execute its fundamental transformation: the media, the entertainment industry and academia.

Furthermore, he is an unabashed capitalist, a walking manifestation of American achievement through commerce. And for this, they despise him.

Five powerful sources conspire to destroy Trump

In his Opening Monologue on May 16, 2017, Sean Hannity called out the five powerful forces that have aligned to undermine Donald Trump’s presidency:  1) “destroy-Trump propaganda media”; 2)  the “Democrat Party;” 3) the “deep state establishment within the bureaucracy;” 4) “establishment Republicans;” and 5) “NeverTrump-ers.”

There are also Never-Trump-ers entrenched in the NSA, FBI, CIA and State Department, and, although a small minority, they have proved to be less than loyal to our new President and therefore potentially dangerous.  Some within the FBI disregarded their oath of confidentiality and leaked classified information, including private conversations between President Trump and World leaders. Media sources published the classified information, causing patriots to question this treasonous behavior and express concern over why there was little national media outrage over this violation of ethics.

Media sources are quick to criticize our President, yet display no hesitation to show their hypocrisy when they ignore or minimize his accomplishments, including a record breaking high stock market and the lowest unemployment numbers we have seen in many years.  In so doing they not only cause President Trump harm, but our nation as well.  Other country’s leaders and citizens are forming opinions of our President based on our media’s constant negatives and biased articles. How does this benefit our Country?

A recent example of the blatantly biased media can be seen in the aftermath of the Charlottesville, Virginia mayhem on August, September 13, 2017.   The press became unhinged in their effort to criticize Trump’s comments.  Yet, many of us who heard his speech could not understand their outrage, as his remarks were appropriate and confirmed by Virginia officials.  Some tried to blame only one side, but pictures and witnesses proved Trump correct, as both sides participated in the chaos.  Little blame was applied to City officials who did not offer proper supervision and thus allowed the chaos to escalate without any serious intervention.  American citizens are desperate for unbiased reporting.

Butler University in Indianapolis is now offering a class this fall on the anti-Trump protest movement. Met with criticism by members of the community, the University is still determined to offer it.  Look for this to become a new class in colleges throughout the Country.  It would not be unreasonable to predict that the Leftist administrators and professors who dominate our colleges and universities will present the issue from a Leftist viewpoint. Surely there are many taxpayers who oppose the idea of tax payers largely financing these Leftist ideas in government funded schools.

Obama likely involved in “Resistance” –  Enter billionaire George Soros

It is equally “telling” that President Obama has chosen not to honor the American tradition of former Presidents to leave Washington D.C. and return home and avoid politics.  This tradition graciously allows a “smooth transition of power” for the new Administration.  Obama chose to break the tradition. He bought a home down the street from the White House and moved his former consultant, Valerie Jarrod, into his home. These and other facts indicate Obama also appears to be involved in the “Resistance” and most likely a leader within it.

In a report published in August of this year, Jeff Reynold revealed other groups involved in the Trump “Resistance” effort via a 49-page document marked PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL, wherein the entire anti-Trump Soros plan was revealed.  Called Democracy Matters,a Strategic Plan For Action, the plan lists four leftist partner organizations, all funded and backed by George Soros.

These organizations include Media Matters, American Bridge 21st Century, CREW, and Shareblue.

Reynold identified the mission of CREW as the most dangerous. If successful it will result in a steady flow of damaging information and continual new revelations, forcing the Trump Administration to defend themselves in Court.  This will then result in the exit of previous powerful Trump supporters.

Fighting back against the left

Does all of the above sound too horrendous to be true?  If we hadn’t already seen evidence of the above happening, it would be easy to dismiss this as just a vicious tale too incredible to be believed; however, we have proof!  We have already witnessed seditious actions by some who have stated and written far more than what our laws would identify as permissible.  In a perfect world these perpetrators would be guilty of treasonous acts.

It is incumbent upon all of us who love America to take action and oppose these detrimental forces, whether a Republican or Democrat, because this unprecedented plot against our President will have serious consequences for all if this treachery is allowed to continue. This is not just about President Trump, it is about the security, strength, and viability of America going forward.  Do not let Leftists win, because if they do succeed, we risk this being a new norm for our future elections.

How and what specifically can “we the people” do to protect our president and nation?

1.  Write your Congressman expressing your strong concerns.

2.  Send a 200 word letter to the editors of newspapers and other media sources in your state

3.  Share your concerns with friends, family, neighbors, organizations, and church leaders

The more who know the facts, the better chance we have of stopping these unAmerican tactics.  Patriots, let’s fight back with logic, facts, and the passion of our forefathers who sacrificed much more to give us this wonderful Country and Constitution.

Thorner: Walsh, Hewitt and Benson grade Trump’s first seven months in office

By Nancy Thorner  (Photos by Mark Weyermuller)

BOLINGBROOK – Tuesday night, three national conservative personalities – WIND AM 560’s Joe Walsh, Salem Radio’s Hugh Hewitt and Townhall.com’s Guy Benson announced their grades of the Trump presidency thus far.

None of the three were hesitant to give their opinions as to what they thought about Trump’s presidency which has been maligned daily by the mainstream media, the Shadow government, Democrat leaders past and present, organizations funded by billionaire Democrat donor, George Soros and Never Trumpers. All those have been a detriment to Trump’s success, besides members of his own Republican Party that don’t realize that by participating in the on-going concerted effort to destroy Trump and his presidency, they are contributing to what would be the destruction of this nation and the principles upon which this nation was founded.

Joe Walsh’s initial remark to the assembled was greeted enthusiastically:  “She isn’t president anymore!” Not so with Joe’s second remark, which at least caused me to question what surprises might be in store for me:  “We all don’t think the same on everything.”

 

 

I already knew that I was in disagreement with Joe Walsh about Trump’s Afghanistan remarks of the night before (August 22), having heard Walsh state his firm opposition to Trump’s decision to remain in Afghanistan instead of pulling out, while listening to The Joe Walsh Show while driving to the Bolingbrook event.

I was pleased to hear later on in the program that Hugh Hewitt thought Trump’s Afghanistan address was one of the four best speeches he had given so far, rating with the ones in Saudi Arabia, his Joint Address to Congress, and his speech in Warsaw, Poland.  Hewitt went on to call Trump’s Afghanistan speech as Trump’s “Better Angel” moment, specifically because Trump honored all of the military and admitted the difficulty that comes with the job of being president (changing his mind because of threats perceived). Guy Benson elaborated on the aspect of humility and on Trump’s ability to display such humility.

Discussion of the previous weekend’s events in Charlottesville was another divisive topic that engendered controversy regarding the nature of Trump’s Tuesday news conference of August 15  in front of Trump Towers, as Hugh Hewitt and Guy Benson raked Trump over the coals, seeming to take their cues from the Left and further condemning Trump’s rhetoric as “not presidential,” which, I’m sure will continue to be a thorn in the side of both Hewitt and Benson.

 

Not so with Joe who rated the combative encounter of Trump and the media as very good. As Joe said, 67% of Republicans liked what Trump said and how he said it, believing that Trump had initially condemned all hate, but that Democrats only see hate on one side — the Republican side.

With the failure of the Republican U.S. Senate and House to pass a Repeal and Replacement of Obamacare, this discussion fostered some rather unorthodox views.  To Hewitt’s credit he did label all 5 healthcare systems in America as broken, but then went on to claim that McCain’s vote, which defeated the Senate’s healthcare bill, was a vendetta against McConnell.  Benson, in turn, blamed the House Freedom Conference for the problems encountered by the House in crafting its bill.

Once again Joe spoke up in his usual no-hold-back way: “If Republicans can’t get something done, we will lose the House.”  In countering Joe’s pessimistic view, Benson said: “Thank God for having Nancy Pelosi as Leader in the U.S House.”  As to the Senate, “We have ten Democrats in the Senate up in 2018 for re-election whose states were won by Donald Trump.”  Not to be outdone, Walsh came back with, “Republicans haven’t done squat!”

The two most shocking revelations of the night were 1) comments by Hewitt and Benson about how they viewed Republican leaders McConnell and Ryan and 2) whether they were supportive of Senator Jeff Flake’s re-election bid in Arizona given his public assault on Trump.

Walsh stated unequivocally that both Ryan and McConnell have been in office way too long and new blood is needed in the House and Senate leadership positions. There will also be no endorsement forthcoming from Joe for Senator Flake.

Not so with Hugh Hewitt who described Mitch McConnell as the “best leader Republicans have had in the Senate for years.”  His support of Mitch seemed to be based solely in that McConnell had saved the Supreme Court by getting Judge Gorsuch confirmed. Benson likewise touted the Gorsuch appointment to the Supreme Court, further noting that it’s difficult to corral the members of the Senate.

As a friend of House Leader Paul Ryan, Benson further expressed the need for Ryan’s institutional expertise to govern. Notwithstanding that Arizona’s Senator Flake has a visceral dislike for Trump and that Senate Leader Mitch McConnell is doing all he can to keep Flake in the Senate with massive funds available to him to spend to keep the status quo in the Senate, both Hewitt and Benson are on the side of Mitch McConnell in their support of Flake, believing that it’s better to keep the seat Republican by eviscerating a Republican challenger, even if the “R” in front of Flake’s name means nothing.

Grades Assigned to Trump by Benson, Hewitt and Walsh

Near the end of the event, Benson, Hugh, and Walsh gave their own letter grade as to how they viewed Trump’s seven months in office and the reason for their grade. Having heard how Benson and Hewitt were less than complimentary in many of their comments, I was surprised by the marks both Benson and Hugh assigned President Trump.

Guy Benson, in averaging all his likes and dislikes, arrived at a “C”.  Benson likes Trump’s conservative cabinet and the appointment of Justice Gorsuch.

Hugh Hewitt assigned Trump a “B”.  Mentioned specifically for not giving Trump a higher grade was Hewitt’s belief that Trump’s Department of Defense is a failure. He said the Secretary of State should have been John Bolton or Nikki Haley.

Joe Walsh assigned the highest mark to Trump, an “A-“, further mentioning all the amazing things going on after the regulatory government of the past administration.

 

In Conclusion

Although Joe Walsh makes known his disappointment with President Trump on his weekday radio program, he did express his support for Trump on almost every issue and stood out as the most supportive of Trump.  Joe is honest, blunt, not always politically correct, and you know where he stands. These are the same traits that appeal to Trump supporters and why they remain loyal to him, despite efforts to discredit him.  Hewitt exposed himself as an establishment Republican talk show host, while Guy Benson pegged himself as just another establishment Republican

Voices of dissent could be heard from time to time from those in attendance when displeasing Trump remarks were made, but as is apt to happen when an audience of Republican conservatives and Tea Party members are brought together, they were respectful of the speakers.  However, stunned looks could be seen on the faces of those in attendance as they left the event, still puzzling over some of what Hewitt and Benson had to say.

I also talked to several attendees on the way out of the event who felt the same way about Hugh Hewitt and Guy Benson.

Questions and Answers were entertained, but had to be cut short when Joe Walsh announced that Hugh Hewitt had to leave because because had to be up early the next morning for his radio show.

 

Friday, August 25, 2017 at 11:18 AM | Permalink

Thorner: Surprising facts about the Declaration of Independence

By Nancy Thorner – 

Just how did a group of thinkers and activists in the 1700s come up with a cherished document that launched a revolution and developed into a dream?

Lawyer David J. Shestokas, a policy advisor for The Heartland Institute, shared some of the surprising answers he found in his research for his new book, Creating the Declaration of Independence, at a continuing series of Wednesday evening events held by The Heartland Institute.

 

About David Shestokas and His BooksMr. Shestokas earned his B.A. in Political Science from Bradley University in 1975 and his Juris Doctor from The John Marshall Law School, cum laude, in June of 1987. In 1986-87 he served on The John Marshall Law Review. Additionally he studied comparative legal systems at Trinity College in Dublin. As a former Assistant State’s Attorney for the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office in Chicago, IL, Shestokas was involved in over 10,000 criminal prosecutions.  

Creating the Declaration of Independence is David Shestokas’ second book.  He is also the author of Constitutional Sound Bites  that explains the history, philosophy and meaning of our Founding documents. There are over 150 question and answer entries in Constitutional Sound Bites, and while the entries are all related, each conveys a stand-alone message about the philosophy, organization and purpose of America’s Founding Documents.

The Spanish-language edition, Cápsulas Informativas Constitucionales, is the only book that explains America’s Founding Documents for the 36,000.000 Americans more comfortable in Spanish than English. All three books are available on Amazon in print and Kindle editions. 

A Journey Back to 1776

As was soon demonstrated through Shestokas’ excellent and passionate presentation of Creating the Declaration of Independence, I was transported back into the minds of Richard Henry Lee, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson in the weeks before July 4, 1776 to learn, among other fascinating details:  1) Lee’s trepidation as he knew when he proposes American Independence to the Second Continental Congress that he is literally risking beheading.  2) The meeting between John Adams and Jefferson at City Tavern as they begin crafting the Declaration.  3) The story of how Jefferson came to reluctantly draft the Declaration when few others, including Adams thought that Jefferson’s assignment was important. 4)  A shortcut Jefferson used to craft a document of such immortality on such short notice.  5.  How the Declaration of Independence affects the work of the Supreme Court today.

Accurate and Hidden Stories of the Founding

Such unique facts are not found in history books of past generations.  They certainly are not found in texts used to instruct today’s youth, where oft-used Zinn’s People’s History of the United States, 1492 to Present offers mutilations of American history to impressionable minds.  Extensive research enabled Shestokas to discover heretofore hidden facts about important historical figures in the founding of our nation and then present them in an entertaining and educational way.

Within the easy-to-read, entertaining, and extremely informative pages of Creating the Declaration of Independence — which should be a widely read by students whether in public, private, charter, or home-school venues – adults will likewise discover of how Jefferson came to fashion the abstract truth that stands in the way of despotism and tyranny in creating the American Creed of only 55 words.

The American Creed in 55 Words

And what is this creed that represents the abstract truth?  The basic elements of the American mind are set forth in this 55 word opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

As Mr. Shestokas notes in the foreword of his book:

There have been few competitors to Thomas Jefferson, who in his writing the Declaration of Independence, demonstrate his ability to take the English language and express elegantly and simply an idea that was so profound that others write whole books to explain the same concept.  A rival to Jefferson’s skill was a student of the Declaration of Independence: Abraham Lincoln.

The Declaration of Independence came to represent an expression of the American mind that was prevalent in the colonies of that time. As Jefferson stated, the Declaration contained no new ideas, nor was there any originality in it on his part. He merely articulated the common sense of what people in that day were thinking.

When Richard Henry Lee, with trepidation, proposed the idea of American Independence on June 7, 1776 to the Second Continental Congress, risking beheading, the Revolutionary War was already in progress.  It was on April 19, 1775, when a group of determined Americans stared down the red-coated regulars of the British army in Lexington, Massachusetts, fired a shot was fired to ignite a global conflict that pitted the world’s mightiest nation against her North American colonies.

From the time Adams convinced Jefferson to write the Declaration of Independence on June 14, 1776 by telling Jefferson “you can write ten times better than I can”, Jefferson accomplished his task in only 17 days, the Second Continental Congress spent two days making some changes to the document, and on July 4th, 1776, the Congress voted to accept the Declaration of Independence.  This was a monumental and unheard of event, as before July 4th, 1776, world was made up of monarchies ruled by kings and tyrants. In this document Jefferson expressed the crucial difference of the United States in relation to all that had gone before

Jefferson and Adams Construct the Declaration

Given the legal training of both Adams and Jefferson, it was natural for them to agree upon the format for the declaration similar to a civil complaint used to start a lawsuit:

1. A preamble or “whereas” statement explaining the purpose of the document.
2. A statement of law/philosophy that states the basis for the proposed action.
3. A list of grievances against the king.
4. Prior actions taken in response to the king’s acts.
5. Apply the law/philosophy to the actions to arrive at the conclusion that independence is the appropriate remedy to the grievance.

In writing the Declaration of Independence Jefferson examined the history of revolutions and philosophy. The new nation was to establish a government of law and not of men and had to be based upon law that men could not change. Such law was found in the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.  The “self-evident” truths in the Declaration of Independence are derived from “the Law of Nature and of Nature’s God”. While writing Jefferson sat in a swivel chair (his invention) and played his violin for relaxation.

In those eight words Thomas Jefferson expressed the crucial difference of the United States in relation to all that had gone before:

As a result of this nation’s Natural Law heritage, affirmatively stated in the Declaration of Independence where the secular “Laws of Nature” and the Divine Natural Law “of Nature’s God” are compatible, our Constitution specifically recognizes the existence of rights not listed in the Constitution or rights that exist outside the written positive law.

It is therefore the Declaration that provides the organizing philosophy for the United States government, its legal legitimacy and constraints upon is actions.

All this and more is in Shestokas’ work, Creating the Declaration of Independence. You can follow David Shestokas on Twitter @shestokas and join his Facebook group: Dave Shestokas on the Constitution.

Prior to the talk, Veronica Harrison, marketing director at The Heartland Institute, welcomed attendees, drawing special attention to Heartland Picnic of Freedom open to the public on Saturday, September 9th from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at Heartland Headquarter to welcome Heartland’s new president, Dr. Tim Huelskamp to Arlington Heights.  Dr. Huelskamp was chosen to succeed Heartland’s long-time president Joseph Bast, who co-founded the organization in 1984. Bast plans to remain at Heartland as CEO until sometime in 2018. There will be free music, refreshments, and hamburgers and brats on the grill for all to enjoy.

If you have interest in having Mr. Shestokas speak to your group use the contact page on his website. His presentation at Heartland is available on YouTube.

More on Jefferson’s influence on the United States is recounted in this article.

 

Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 09:16 AM | Permalink

Comments

Thorner/Ingold: The Left unhinged over Charlottesville

By Nancy Thorner and Ed Ingold –

There is a phrase widely attributed to Voltaire (c1770), but more likely from a book by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, published in 1906. “I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.” Regardless of the assignation, it speaks to the heart of the First Amendment, and President Trump’s dilemma. If one listens carefully to the new Left, the Constitution was wrong, consistent with a new defining phrase, “I detest what you say, and your right to say it.”

We are still trying to decipher why Charlottesville weighs so heavily in the news. On Tuesday, August 15, when Trump spoke about his response to the Charlottesville, Virginia violence in the lobby of Trump Towers, the Big Three Networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) couldn’t get enough of Trump as he went to battle with the press. Their evening news broadcasts later that day, which commanded a 77% coverage of Trump, reflected their obsession over the words Trump first used in responding initially to the Virginia mayhem.

To our best estimate, the cause is a conflation of several related but separate issues:

• The racist message the marchers sought to promote
• The right to peaceably assemble in support of that message
• Minor acts of violence between the protesters and counter-protesters
• Deadly violence perpetrated by one of the White Supremacists’ participants

First Amendment Protection

The first two items are protected by the First Amendment. Hate speech, however vile, is protected speech according to the Supreme Court. The right to express your views now publicly is also well-established, as long as they don’t include explicit threats or a call to violence.

It was inevitable that the Left would equate Constitutionally protected “hate speech” with Oliver Wendell Holmes’ famous admonition that “Shouting fire in a crowded theater” is not protected by the First Amendment. This is a false analogy for reasons cited below.

Shouting “Fire!” in a theater presents an imminent danger to those who respond in panic. Hateful but legal speech which offends is not an imminent danger, and a subsequent confrontation is totally voluntary on the part of the counter-protesters.

Violence is prosecutable and largely preventable through actions of the government. The extreme Left opposes practically anything espoused by the Right, or even lack of “politically correctness” as defined by their narcissistic logic. As long as the Left justifies or ignores violence on the part of anarchists, the conflicts will escalate with predictable results. Tolerance for mob action is like tickling a sleeping bear – exhilarating at first, but quickly gets out of hand.

Heat of the Moment Violence Justified?

Another legal fiction not yet cited is the use of so-called “fighting words,” wherein violence in the “heat of the moment” is justified. This argument has rarely been successfully used, and then only to lower the charge by one notch. That said, you can’t call it a “heat of the moment” event if you travel miles to the protest based on news reports and social media.

The President had the temerity to say that the counter-protesters contributed to the violence, which is factually correct. They baited and sniped at the Supremacists at every opportunity, especially when the cameras were rolling, then ran back behind the protective line of policemen. They threw rocks, bottles filled with urine, and used pepper spray from behind the line of sanctuary.

While the Supremacists declare a hate for a broad list of minorities, the counter-protesters are ecumenical haters – government, capitalism, and anyone who disagrees with them. Their reaction is the same, whether facing White Supremacists or common folks who support the President. Wearing a red “Make America Great Again” cap is sufficient to arouse their ire.

Trump Criticized for Acknowledging Sincerity of Both Sides

The President was also criticized for acknowledging the sincerity of some on both sides. It is possible, though not auspicious, that some were there to protest removal of Lee’s statue out of a sense of tradition and historical value. It is also likely that the majority of the counter-protesters objected to the Supremacists’ message, but in a peaceful manner. Throwing invectives is not the same as throwing punches, rocks or bottles.

The potential crisis was that both sides arrived at the scene armed, not only with rocks and bottles, but with clubs and firearms. It is a minor miracle that no gunfire erupted. In a bizarre sense, the homicidal attack with a vehicle seemed to break the tension as the groups were dispersing. Perhaps a sense of mortality descended on both sides. If violators are not prosecuted, the situation will remain volatile and potentially deadly in future encounters.

The White Supremacists have a clear, if indefensible message which is abhorrent to the vast majority of the country. The activists among the counter-protesters, including ANTIFA, have no stated message, but somehow claim plausible moral high ground over those they oppose. Despite the consensus of the Left and [delete “of”] the news media, saying the counter-protesters share the blame for violence is the same as supporting views of the violent right.

Republican Critics of Trump are Despicable and Pitiful

Critics of President Trump will not be satisfied unless he speaks out against both the content of the message and the right to deliver it in public. Although he has done the first, he refuses to condemn the protest itself, and even has the temerity to accuse the counter-protesters of contributing to the violence. The catch is, if the President were to declare hate speech were illegal, he would be attacked on the grounds of denying settled Constitutional rights.

But it is Republican critics who are most deplorable and clueless with their condemnation of Trump. Mitch McConnell joined John Kasich in Republican attacks on Trump saying ‘there are no good neo-Nazis’ after Ohio governor called president ‘pathetic’ – and BOTH George Bushes weighed in as well as lawmakers including Sen.Marco Rubio, Sen. John McCain and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.    Mitt Romney also joined the chorus of Trump condemnation with his tweet in support for Antifa:  “One side is racist, bigoted, Nazi. The other opposes racism and bigotry.”

As Pastor Robert Jeffress, Trump’s spiritual advisor told CBN when further indicting that “there is not a racist bone in Trump’s body”:

“There is an effort to do whatever is necessary to take this president down and they have painted, the media has painted, the liberals have painted, a false narrative that the president is a racist and anytime he tries to break out of that box, liberals aren’t going to allow him to do it.”

Two other national religious leaders likewise came out in their unwavering support of Trump.

• Franklin Graham wrote on his Facebook page: “Shame on the politicians who are trying to push blame on President Trump for what happened in #Charlottesville, VA.

• Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. tweeted: “Finally a leader in the White House. Jobs returning, North Korea backing down, bold truthful statement about Charlottesville tragedy. So proud of Donald Trump.”

Those responsible for running down people with an automobile should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, not only the driver but those who had prior knowledge of or assisted the crime. Attorney General Sessions made this abundantly clear. Nor should the participants who sprayed the marchers with makeshift flame throwers and pepper spray, threw rocks and bottles, or the first punch. The defining principle should be prosecution on the basis of deeds, not ideas. That is the American way.

By far the most significant casualty in the aftermath of Charlottesville is, as usual, the objective truth.

 

Monday, August 21, 2017 at 09:00 AM | Permalink

Thorner: Rauner’s embarrassing interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier

By Nancy Thorner – 

Having found Illinois’ Governor Bruce Rauner to be a cliche-ridden, ineffective communicator, his interview by Bret Baier at Chicago’s Fox News studios on Friday, August 11 for Baier’s daily nationally-televised TV show gave credence to my negative evaluation of Rauner.

Friends from California, whose own governor (Jerry Brown) is running the state into the ground through his ineptness and outlandish policies, viewed for themselves the Rauner interview, and appropriately labeled Rauner “extremely incompetent.”

 

My own response was one of disbelief at Rauner’s responses to questions posed by Mr. Baier. I felt ashamed and embarrassed to have Governor Rauner representing me as the governor of Illinois. After all, Rauner did run as a reform candidate in 2014, with an emphasis on growing jobs, delivering value for taxpayers, giving every child access to world-class schools, and enacting term limits to reform the political system.  As was stated in the Illinois Review: “The interview created a national discussion firestorm, frustrating the state’s political Right and Left, who said Rauner’s responses created more questions than answers for the people of Illinois.”

Responding to Rauner’s money quote in the transcript of Fox News’ interview with Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner   “We make illegal immigration easy and we make legal immigration almost impossible.”

I say, “No, Governor Rauner, we have at least 1.5 million legal immigrants a year when you count the H1-B and other work visas.”

By signing SB31, Rauner will create the leading sanctuary state in the country by abetting illegal immigration. The bill (SB31), referred to as “the Trust Act”, is waiting for Governor Rauner’s signature.  SB31 was introduced by Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) and is intended to curtail all federal immigration powers to detain and deport illegal aliens even in the event that they are convicted of a crime.

Democratic Party Originated as Party of Slavery

Hasn’t the Democrat Party been associated with the party of slavery from early on in this nation’s history? After a lifetime of luxury from the labor of slaves, a founder of the Democrat Party, Thomas Jefferson, refused to free his slaves even upon his death, although admirers offered to buy them from him.

Andrew Jackson, who became the seventh president of the United States, was a wealthy slave owner and infamous Indian killer, gaining the nickname ‘Sharp Knife’ from the Cherokee, because of his brutal military campaigns against Indians.  Andrew Jackson was not only a genocidal maniac against the Indigenous Peoples of the southwest, he was also racist against African peoples.

From Jim Crow, to the oppressed immigrants in the big cities, to the Great Society and forced unionization, the Democrats have always loved to boss people around, while living like overlords from their labor and taxes. This is the reason Democrats fight so hard against medical and education vouchers.  They don’t really care about the people they claim to serve; they only want to keep their power over them.

About Modern Day Slavery?

Nothing describes modern day slavery better than that of illegal immigration.  Although I was born and raised in Pennsylvania, I do remember hearing about the old South when blacks had to step out of the way of whites on sidewalks and where blacks couldn’t drink from the same water fountains or be served at counter in restaurants.

Today illegal immigrants are exploited by criminals, landlords, the police, and their employers, but most of all by the Democrat Party. Through wide-spread illegal immigrant voting, Democrats have become recipients of more electoral votes and an increased number of legislative districts.  Most of all, Illegal immigrants have broken down the rule of law in this country.  When close to 10% of our population is openly flouting the law, why should we be surprised when many feel it unnecessary to obey any law?

The solution to the illegal immigration problem is not what was foolishly granted in 1986, amnesty.  Reagan’s greatest mistake led to a mushrooming of illegal immigration and the destruction of the Republican Party in states like California, where low skilled, functionally illiterate immigrants were encouraged by Democrats to vote for more welfare, rather than to achieve dignity and self-worth by working hard, saving, and getting educated, as immigrants were required to do in the past to get ahead.

Amnesty Creates Problems

The greatest problem, by far, with amnesty is with the countries that send us illegal immigrants.  Back in 1953, South Korea was a wrecked country that barely had enough to eat.  In contrast, Mexico was well off in 1953 compared to the rest of the world.  Today South Korea, despite spending far more on defense than Mexico, is a rich, well-educated country, while Mexico has turned into a third world sewer of corruption, violence and economic despair, with an education system near the bottom.  Socialism has killed Mexico, but it hobbles along as its workers send money home, subsidized by American taxpayers through all sorts of welfare programs.

Accordingly, illegal immigration has done more to ruin Mexico than anything this nation has ever done. Mexican illegals would be far better off if half of them went home and the other half had legal rights as temporary guest workers with no right of citizenship.  Mexico would then be forced to reform.  By so doing so our economy would be liberated, which would also aid in pulling Mexico’s economy out of the rut.  Brought to an end would be the constant cycle of exploitative immigration that does neither country any good.

Europe has a similar problem where illegal immigrants are failing to become assimilated.  By sending their welfare money home, more “refugees” and immigrant are being lured into Europe who are likewise unable to fit in. Their home countries get further and further behind, because essential cultural problems never get solved.

We don’t need immigrants to change our country into their image.  It would be better to send “missionaries” to serve in other countries to change them to our ways.  This happened with Japan and South Korea.

Klan Members Become Role Models in Democratic Party

It was easy for the late Robert Byrd to go from being a Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops of the Klan to a “role model” for the Clintons and all the other socialists of the Democrat Party.  But to really care about the people of the world, a Lincoln-like figure is mandated to fight those who exploit others and then claim it is good for society and for those they exploit.

Instead of fighting back against the media and those who are exploiting cheap labor, Governor Rauner and other establishment Republicans have decided to pander to the media and those exploiting cheap labor.  But as Trump proved and Lincoln before him, it’s possible to be right on the issue and still win at the ballot box.

It’s time we end all illegal immigration and cut back our legal immigration to those who can speak English and benefit our economy, just as is done in Canada and Australia.

Here is an A very good, compact article about changing our open door immigration policy.

Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 11:22 AM | Permalink

Tags: Bret Baier, Bruce Rauner, Illinois Review, immigration

Thorner/Ingold: Charlottesville carnage blamed on Trump’s campaign rhetoric

By Nancy Thorner & Ed Ingold –

Capturing news headlines on Saturday, August 12, 2017, with non-stop coverage on TV cable channels, was of a woman being killed and 19 hurt as a car plowed into anti-fascists at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.

• Hundreds attended an event held at Charlottesville’s Emancipation Park 
• A local state of emergency was declared around 11am and the rally was determined an unlawful assembly 
• A state police helicopter covering the rally crashed near a golf course within city limits, killing two officers 
• President Trump admonished the day’s events, saying: ‘We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, violence, on many sides’

The Democratic mayor of Charlottesville, Virginia, Michael Signer, pinned blame directly on President Trump, attributing the violence to the “hate-filled campaign” Trump ran, fomenting the white nationalist protest and related violence that occurred in his city.

An article published in the Washington Post on Sunday, August 13, Trump lit the torches of white supremacy in Charlottesville. We must extinguish them, likewise blames President Trump for the violence in Charlottesville for failing to single out the alt-right marchers AFTER THE FACT. The article suggests that this is a family trait, citing an event 90 YEARS AGO, where his grandfather was fined for not dispersing a Ku Klux rally on or near his property. Not only does the alt-left ignore history, they twist it to suit their needs.

Charlottesville event predictable

The events in Charlottesville were predictable. The triggering event was a parade by White Power advocates (henceforth called the “protesters”), ostensibly protesting the scheduled removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee from Emancipation (nee Lee) Park. It would have gone largely unnoticed, if the hundred or so protesters had not been met by several hundred counter-protesters.

As too common in recent years, the counter-protesters came armed with rocks, bottles filled with noxious substances, pepper spray, tasers, clubs and video cameras, which were used to assault the protesters and then film their reaction.  What was different at Charlottesville is that the protesters were ready with their own riot-sticks and pool cues masquerading as sign posts. Also guarding their flanks were men armed with rifles and handguns (open carry is generally legal in Virginia). Except for a few skirmishes, the two sides maintained a safe distance, until a melee occurred toward the end of the day, when counter-protesters attempted to prevent the protesters from dispersing and leaving the area.

If the results were bad, they could have been much worse, and were. One man rammed a group of counter-protesters with his car, killing one and injuring dozens. It is not clear which side the driver was aligned with at this point, although the media assumes it was with the protesters. It is possible there was collusion, but there is no evidence to support this theory at present. The key point is that the protesters expected that armed counter-protesters would be drawn to the event and were prepared to counter that threat, and the counter-protesters willingly obliged.

For years the government has tolerated violent counter-protests, supported in spirit by the main stream media. After all, their cause is “righteous” when they riot against “racism”. While this tolerance did not start in Ferguson, MO, it certainly crested at that moment and has continued unabated.

Counter protests over political views

Violent counter-protests have not been limited to alleged abuse of government power. They also occur in reaction to political views they disagree with. How many Trump rallies were met with violence (nearly all)? A Trump rally in Chicago was called off because the city could not (or would not) prevent violence. The alleged offenses were as trivial as red baseball caps bearing the slogan, “Make America Great Again.” When your goal is to achieve your ends by threats and violence, anything will serve as a catalyst. Since Ferguson, the press has largely suppressed the fact that nearly all arrests made at these events were of the counter-protesters, not Trump supporters.

The counter-protesters are often goaded by small, organized activists from groups such as Black Lives Matter, funded by George Soros, and more egregiously, ANTIFA (Anti-Facist), and others who wear black clothes, face masks, and are armed with tasers and clubs. These activists fade into the rear when violence erupts, often using the chaos to mask vandalism and arson, leaving their dupes to bear the consequences.

That playbook goes back to 1918, when about 100 Bolsheviks overthrew the duly elected Republic. Imagine if someone in Charlottesville had fired a gun into the ranks of the protest march, and fire had been returned. The brunt would have been borne by the non-violent participants, then exploited by the would-be Bolsheviks (as in 1918). This effect was played by both sides in Charlottesville. The protesters gained more publicity from the assault by counter-protesters than by chanting their bigotry into an empty street, not to mention the 24/7 news.

Terrorism defined

The definition of “terrorism” is the use of violence to achieve a political goal. Strictly speaking, the counter-protesters were committing acts of terrorism when they used violence to deny the right of the protesters to march. It is likely terrorism to assault members of the public going to and from a political rally, even if the rally is on behalf of the candidate (or President) Donald Trump. It was an act of terrorism if the driver smashed into counter-protesters with his car, if meant to stop their protest or deny their right of free speech.

By the same measure, it was not an act of terrorism to march in protest for whatever ridiculous or vile cause, in that permission was given from the city of Charlottesville under the order of a federal judge. However, it might be terrorism (or ordinary assault) if a protester charged into a group of counter-protesters, but it is probably self-defense if they did not initiate the encounter, and if blow for blow without escalation. Videos which show a protester getting up off the ground and going after someone standing on the sidelines is probably a case of selective editing. There is ample evidence of selective or misleading reportage.

• A counter-protester is shown assaulting a protester with an ignited spray from an aerosol can. That doesn’t happen by accident – you need a match or lighter (aggravated assault).

• A counter-protester is shown in self-applied chains of a “slave,” carrying a large “zap” stick or cattle prod (possibly illegal in North Carolina, per 14-269).

• Numerous incidents of pepper spray directed from the sidelines into the parade (aggravated assault).

Trump correct in his condemnation

President Trump was correct in condemning violence and bigotry “on all sides,” because each side demonizes the other, and claims the moral high ground for doing so. The First Amendment guarantees the right to peaceably assemble and express your grievances. It does not guarantee the right to suppress others exercising that right.

The question is how to keep these situations from escalating until there is serious injury or loss of life.

1.  There should be no weapons at an organized rally, on either side. Violators should be removed, and prosecuted if laws are broken.

2.  There should be no masks or disguises allowed, when the intent is to conceal one’s identity.

3.  If arrests are not feasible at the moment, it is technically feasible to identify suspects from video and photographs, even nationwide, via biometric matching.

4.  The law is must be applied equally to both sides of an issue, otherwise violence will escalate.

Monday, August 14, 2017 at 01:07 PM | Permalink

Tags: #Charlottesville, Donald Trump, racism, violence, white nationalist

Thorner/O’Neil: Still scratching your head over Trump’s victory? You’re not alone.

By Nancy Thorner & Bonnie O’Neil – 

The 2016 Presidential election will likely be studied and scrutinized for decades due to its various unexpected and unconventional aspects. No matter if you did or did not vote for Donald Trump, the election and next four years will be informative, possibly even critical to the future of America.

Even if all the facts may never emerge, there is enough known about the direction our country had taken in the previous decade. This direction resulted in an election which reflected that the majority of voters did not agree with this direction and in 2016 wanted a change. For those of us viewing the twists and turns, as new information emerges each day, we can only hope that the facts already exposed and the resultant controversial dialogue will ultimately benefit America in the years ahead.

As George Bernard Shaw stated: “Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”

Circumstances that reasonable people found objectionable in the last eight years under President Obama and which were believed to be largely sanitized by a liberal media, include:

(1) The I.R.S. scandal that targeted conservative groups;

(2) Lack of  proper health care for veterans;

(3) “Fast and Furious” – a program  in which government agents sold guns to suspected Mexican gangs which resulted in an American border agent, Brian Terry, being killed by one of those guns;

(4) The attack that killed our Ambassador and four brave men in Benghazi, which Obama and his administration intentionally blamed on an obscure anti-Muslim video while knowing it was a terrorist attack.  Hillary had ignored the pleas of our Ambassador who had begged for reinforcements;

(5) The use of federal funds to subsidize “green energy” companies like Solyndra with massive loans, only for these companies to collapse and file for bankruptcy;

(6) The private conversation between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch on the tarmac; and

(7)  FBI Director Comey excusing Hillary’s use of a private server which contained classified material and likely was compromised by foreign countries.

A significantly biased Leftist media helped to shape the information above to soften the problems it presented to the Obama administration, but a surprisingly alert number of Americans were disgusted and knew the truth when it came time to mark their ballots. However, instead of the Democrats strategizing why voters rejected Hillary in favor of Trump, a non-politician, they chose instead to double-down, form Resistance groups to oppose Trump, and encourage their friends in the media to destroy our President. Thus, a “Resistance” effort was established which some have called detrimental to America if not treasonous.

Recently, Congresswoman Maxine Waters had the audacity to state:  “Not only will we resist you, we will impeach you, Donald Trump.”  Some have suggested it would serve America if Waters were the one impeached.

 

How Trump overcome enormous odds to win the Presidency

It might be prudent for Democrats to consider a recent article written by Evan Sayet, which provides some interesting reasons for how and why Donald Trump overcame enormous odds to win the Presidency. Sayet says Trump, among all the other Republicans, was a fighter.  He was the only candidate who was not intimidated by the Leftists and instead was willing to fight hard against the ugly tactics often used by many on the Left.  Trump had the personality, will, desire, and stamina to fight enemies from inside as well as outside our Country and sadly has had to even contend with moderates within the Republican Party who have resisted supporting him.  The “D.C. swamp” is not limited to members of just one political party.

Sayet believes the qualities Leftists say Trump lacks are the very ones most helpful in the war that Democrat officials, media sources, and community organizers have waged against President Trump and other Republicans who dare to oppose their agenda.  Attributes such as  “dignified,” “collegiality,”  and “proper” are ones Trump opponents claim are necessary for our President, but Sayet says they are the very ones that America does not need at this point in history.

Sayet describes Donald Trump as America’s first wartime president in the Culture War we fight today.  He stated attributes like “dignity” and “collegiality” simply are not the essential qualities one looks for in a warrior during battle.  Sayet used examples like Ulysses Grant who was a drunk in peacetime and thus might have been drummed out of the Army for unbecoming conduct; instead, he was a hero winning a critical war.  General George Patton was a vulgar-talking jerk who in peacetime might have been stripped of his rank had General Dwight Eisenhower and/or President Roosevelt not allowed Patton to lead our army forward in battles against Hitler’s army which helped to change war results in our favor.  Trump, like Grant and Patton, may be the right person at the right time in our history.  It should be noted that Donald Trump does not drink nor does his language compare to that of General George Patton.  The one connection all these warriors have in common is courage and a love for winning over the enemy that threatened them and now threatens each of us.

This type of leader is a threat to Liberals who are keen on Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, which dictate the opposite of everything our country has believed in since its founding.  Sayet’s article states that Alinsiky’s book was the playbook for the entire Obama administration, and it should be of interest to all American patriots that Alinsky was the very subject of Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis. What did Alinsky advocate?  Maligning the opponent with constant, vicious attacks, whether true or not.  That should be a wake-up call to every American patriot.  A person can have all the outward signs of someone appealing, but in fact have self-serving purposes.  These people appeal to the public with carefully crafted rhetoric, but their actions reveal their treachery and anti-American intentions.  Trump has the personality to respond to these types of attacks, while many politicians would buckle under the pressure.

Sayet’s article also reveals what he thinks of the “fake media.”  Sayet stated how the media has gotten many significant stories of the past sixty years not just wrong, but diametrically opposed to the truth.  Recent examples given were the Benghazi tragedy and what really happened on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri.  In declaring war on the media, Trump parrots the message of the Leftists by using the Alinsky tactics against those who practice these tactics – CNN and media personalities including sources like Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow, Paul Krugman, and Nicholas Kristof.  Trump quickly identified those who employed Alinsky tactics as a weapon against him and was able to turn it back on them.  Few, if any Republican leaders, would be able to do this as effectively as Trump.

 

Extent of corruption realized and reflected at ballot box

Thanks to a few Conservative media sources, including FOX and a variety of Conservative websites, voters began to understand the extent of corruption in our nation, understood the causes, and then realized that most politicians were not only ineffective but were actually part of the problem.  They preferred a non-politician with common sense rather than the typical attributes of “dignified,” “collegial,” and/or “always proper”, which might have been sufficient in another time, but not at a time when the establishment and elected legislators in both political parties are more interested in keeping a corrupt status-quo to retain their power and reap financial rewards than in listening to the voice of the electorate and making America great again. Trump’s lack of political ties proved to be an asset, as did his strong, aggressive personality.  Thus Trump’s election may be the result of the majority of voters understanding all this, as opposed to Democrats and most media sources.

Another reason offered for Donald Trump’s victory is that it is an answer to the prayers of Americans throughout our country.

Christians believe that God heard and chose the perfect person to guide America in the right direction, much like what the Old Testament revealed when God chose David, despite his flaws.  David became the renowned king of Israel for 40 years.  Christians will settle for eight.

Christians believe God’s Word and that He chose David and many others to lead despite their flaws.  They are therefore more apt to see Trump as a sign of God’s hand of protection upon our President, Congress, citizens, and nation.  America is in need of help, because the World has many problems that need the help of this powerful heavenly Source.  Perhaps our churches will see the importance of praying for our new leader.

Some have asked whether specific Democrats are so riddled with hatred for Trump and/or consumed with destroying him that they are willing to abandon the principles upon which our nation was founded and the dictates set forth in our Constitution.   Democrats’ and a few Republicans’ actions today are dangerously close to what most reasonable people see as sedition if not treason.

It is time and absolutely essential for both parties to engage in positive discussions providing common ground to establish what is best for all of America, not individuals or their particular Party.

 

Friday, August 11, 2017 at 01:53 PM | Permalink

Tags: 2016 victory, Donald Trump, election, Illinois Review

Thorner: The Dangerous Game of ‘Gender Make-Believe’ with Children

By Nancy Thorner – 

Culturally, this nation seems to be in the midst of a transgender craze, which is resulting in an increase of child abuse among parents who think that ideological agenda is a way of life for their small children,  It was only four years ago when the Supreme Court paved the way for gay marriage. Having won this big fight, the mainstream media began to question what would be next for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender movement.

Wilson Cruz, an LGBT activist, told CNN at the time:  “I really do believe [the Supreme Court ruling] is the domino that is going to tip over the rest of the dominoes.  Do not get in the way of this train, because it will run you over.”

Billionaire George Soros, to ensure things ran full-steam ahead dedicated at least $2.7 million to the cause that year, according to his tax returns, through his Foundation to Promote Open Society.

The breakdown of American social norms is advancing at a lightning pace. The transgender lobby is out to drastically alter our society.  If a person shows even the slightest hesitation to embrace their cause, they are called a hateful bigot.  Not only are adults being told this, but school children are being taught the same.

Parents are likewise receiving guidance from Planned Parenthood and other liberal bastions on how to talk to preschoolers about transgenderism and masturbation, as if at the tender age of three a child needs to know about transgenderism and masturbation.

Following is some advice from the guidelines of Planned Parenthood as reported in the Daily Wire:

“Be mindful of how you talk around your kid, too. Talking to (or in front of) your daughter about growing up and having boyfriends or marrying a man (and vice versa) sends the message that girls are supposed to like boys, and boys are supposed to like girls, and that anything else is wrong or not normal. While kids this young don’t know their sexual orientation yet, assuming they’re straight could make them scared to come to you or feel bad about themselves later. This can lead to mental health issues, unhealthy relationships, and taking more health risks when they reach their teenage years.”

Planned Parenthood also provides a litmus test for determining whether or not your child is transgender.  If your child is “Consistent, Insistent and Persistent” with the idea that he or she was born the wrong gender, you have no choice but to run with it.

Transgender propaganda impacting society

Michelle Cretella, M.D., president of the American College of Pediatricians, a national organization of pediatricians and other health care professionals dedicated to the health and well-being of children, wrote an article for The Daily Signal  in which she explained the effects of the transgender mania on children and the impact on her career.  As stated in Dr. Cretella’s article:

“Parents are agreeing to have their children receive medication that could sterilize them for the rest of their lives, and some of these children are not even ten years old.  Parents are brainwashing their malleable children with transgender propaganda until they eventually believe it. Once they believe it, the parents are free to convince the child of participating in self-destructive behavior such as the use of puberty blockers.”

As to why doctors are bowing to transgender demands: The Left will stand outside clinics holding signs inferring that doctors who don’t support their views are “transphobic”. Fearful of losing their jobs if clinics are closed down, doctors are not fighting back.

Over the span of twelve years, nine years as a member of the board of the American College of Pediatricians and the last three years as its president, Dr. Cretella has witnessed what has now become the new normal.

• “Pediatric “gender clinics” are considered elite centers for affirming children who are distressed by their biological sex. This distressful condition, once dubbed gender identity disorder, was renamed “gender dysphoria” in 2013.

• In 2014, there were 24 of these gender clinics, clustered chiefly along the east coast and in California. One year later, there were 40 across the nation.

• With 215 pediatric residency programs now training future pediatricians in a transition-affirming protocol and treating gender-dysphoric children accordingly, gender clinics are bound to proliferate further.

• Last summer, the federal government stated that it would not require Medicare and Medicaid to cover transition-affirming procedures for children or adults, because medical experts at the Department of Health and Human Services found the risks were often too high and the benefits too unclear.  Undeterred by these findings, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health has pressed ahead, claiming—without any evidence—that these procedures are “safe.”

• Two leading pediatric associations—the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Pediatric Endocrine Society—have followed in lockstep, endorsing the transition affirmation approach even as the latter organization concedes within its own guidelines that the transition-affirming protocol is based on low evidence.”

According to the transition-affirming protocol, parents are told to treat their children as the gender they desire and to place them on puberty blockers around age 11 or 12 if gender dysphoric. By age 16 if children still insist they are trapped in the wrong body, they are to be place on cross-sex hormones and biological girls may obtain a double mastectomy.

Scientific research and facts disprove transgender narrative

The transgender movement has gained legs in the medical community and in our culture by offering a deeply flawed narrative.  According to  Dr. Cretalla, scientific research and facts tell a different story.

1. Twin studies prove no one is born “trapped in the body of the wrong sex.”

2. Gender identity is malleable, especially in young children.

3. Puberty blockers for gender dysphoria have not been proven safe.

4. There are no cases in the scientific literature of gender-dysphoric children discontinuing blockers.

5. Cross-sex hormones are associated with dangerous health risks.

6. Neuroscience shows that adolescents lack the adult capacity needed for risk assessment

7. There is no proof that affirmation prevents suicide in children.

8. Transition-affirming protocol has not solved the problem of transgender suicide.

Walt Heyer, an accomplished author and public speaker with a passion for mentoring individuals whose lives have been torn apart by unnecessary gender-change surgery, writes how children are encouraged, affirmed and assisted in “coming out” by their parents and the LGBTQ lobby as transgendered without one word about the consequences of the dangerous game of “gender make-believe.”   Such parental affirmation gives young people false hope that they can really become a different gender, a lie even if told with compassionate motives.

According to Mr. Heyer:

For a vulnerable young person, pursuing a dream that is physically impossible to achieve can lead to depression and suicide. The prevalence of suicide attempts among transgender or gender non-conforming youth is 45 percent, according to a 2014 report by the Williams Institute, University of California at Los Angeles School of Law and the American Foundation of Suicide Prevention.  Moreover, doctors themselves admit they cannot tell who the “real” long-term gender dysphoric children are, whether a gender dysphoric child will feel the same way years later

Transgenderism is not a civil right

As Linda Harvey, speaker and author and founder of Mission America (www.missionamerica.com), a Christian pro-family organization tracking current cultural issues, noted in her article of July 19, 2017, Dirty 2 Dozen GOP Reps Bow to “Trans’ Demands, “Peddling  sexual deviance to children and calling it a “civil right” is a gross distortion of American liberty and amounts to child corruption.”

Harvey continues:

“It is true that a few courts have interpreted existing law to give a green light to schoolgirls who want entry to boys’ restrooms, but this is an exception.  There is no “Federal law requires you to call boys who wear skirts by girl pronouns.”

Meanwhile, in July of this year New Jersey Gov. Chris Christiesigned a bill directing public schools to allow transgender students to use the restrooms and other facilities which correspond to their gender identity, which has many people wondering why the Republican Christie signed the Democrat-sponsored bill.

This fall. the Minnesota Department of Education will be providing schools, public and charter, with the “tools” to support transgender and gender-nonconforming students.

Does danger loom ahead?

Trump’s Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, balked several months ago when asked to rescind Obama’s unlawful 2016 Title IX bathroom order that boys had a right to shower with girls at school.  DeVos had to be ordered by Trump and Jeff Sessions to cooperate.

Secretary DeVos, who has become known as an avid supporter of homosexual/gender rebellion lifestyles, should be removed. She also hired Candice Jackson, an open lesbian, to head the DOE’s Office of Civil Rights. A memorandum recently written by Candice Jackson indicates that schools must look out for the “rights” of transgender students and go along with the chosen pronouns of a gender-confused student or else face a possible federal investigation.

There is some good news. Congress is considering a bill to limit the rush to redefine gender in federal law. Recently introduced, H.R. 2796 would continue to define “male” to mean biological male, and females likewise, under existing law.  Contact your congressional representative to support H.R. 2796.

As Dr. Cretella recently explained about medical outcomes that will result from our culture’s rush to embrace transgender change as normal.

“Today’s institutions that promote transition affirmation are pushing children to impersonate the opposite sex, sending many of them down the path of puberty blockers, sterilization, the removal of healthy body parts, and untold psychological damage. These harms constitute nothing less than institutionalized child abuse.”

Part 1 published Wednesday, Aug. 2, 2017:

Thorner: Are we willing to accept political correctness for common sense in the military?  

Thorner: Are we willing to accept political correctness for common sense in the military?

By Nancy Thorner – 

With a series of tweets on Wednesday morning, July 26, 2017, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. military will not accept openly transgender individuals. By so doing, Trump reversed an Obama administration policy directive. Earlier this July, Defense Secretary James Mattis had said he would delay new admissions of openly transgender Americans into the military until Jan. 1 on the advice of military brass. Trump’s announcement, however, at least for the time being, appeared to seal the matter.

There are, however, Republican members of Congress who believe that taxpayers should pay for castration and vaginal construction for transvestite males, double mastectomies of healthy breasts for male-posing women and hormone therapy and all else that goes with it.  The Hartzler Amendment to the House appropriations bill would have stopped the military from paying for the procedures related to sex changes after Obama executive order, but all the Democrats in the House, and 24 Republicans, kept this amendment from passing.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chairman General Joseph Dunford, reacted a day after Trump’s tweet announcement with this admonishment:

“There will be no modifications to the current policy until the president’s direction has been received by the secretary of defense and the secretary has issued implementation guidance.”

Critics of the president’s policy have compared the transgender ban to the racial segregation of the military.  Just as racial segregation championed by so-called progressives Democrats like President Woodrow Wilson didn’t increase the effectiveness of our troops, the push for transgender soldiers represents another largely Democratic effort to use the military to achieve social outcomes unrelated to the primary purpose of the military, which is to defend the country and defeat enemies.

David Kupelian, Managing editor of World Net Daily, had this to say about the meltdown of Democrats and the establishment press about President Trump’s tweet announcement:

“Remember, up until just recently, being transgender was universally recognized around the world as a serious mental disorder. Then suddenly, under relentless LGBT pressure, a panel of people at the top of the American Psychiatric Association decides to partially de-pathologize ‘gender identity disorder’ and suddenly it’s perfectly normal – and now everybody who doesn’t play along is a hater and a klansman.”

What about the right to serve?

Just as in most everything else we do, there are condition (rules and regulations) that are prescribed for service in the military.  Being too tall; too short; too thin, too fat, too old, too young, or not being able to hear or see well, can all be disqualifying conditions. Then there are medical conditions that require constant treatment or excessive accommodation. That’s why people with asthma, diabetes, permanent STD’s/STI’s (like HIV), people with cancer or a recurring history of cancer and individuals with physical disabilities can’t serve (except in very rare cases where a specific waiver is granted).  Do people ever complain about any of the before mentioned restrictions, yet rejection from the military because you are “transgender” implies discrimination.

Society as a whole, seems to have little knowledge of the transgender controversy, especially as it relates to the military?  Here are some facts:

Transgender individuals require hormone replacement therapy, they require psychiatric care during transition, and if they elect to get surgery it can take 2-4 years for them to recover to the point of being eligible to deploy. On top of that, after the surgery they are at a higher risk of infection for the rest of their life, which complicates any attempt at sending them to the field to train where hygiene isn’t always able to be pristine maintained or overseas. An overseas deployment also puts the individual at risk because they may not have steady access to their hormone replacement drugs, which leads to withdrawal and hormone imbalances as well as health problems. So, just like diabetics and cancer patients and individuals with physical or mental disabilities, it just isn’t feasible to accommodate these people so that they can serve.

Although transgender service members have been serving openly in the military since June 30, 2016, when former Defense Secretary Ash Carter ended the ban, it was on Oct. 1, 2016, that transgender troops have been able to receive medical care and start formally changing their gender identifications in the Pentagon’s personnel system.

The Pentagon has refused to release any data on the number of transgender troops currently serving in the military, but a Rand Corp. study estimated that there are between 2,500 and 7,000 transgender service members on active duty and an additional 1,500 to 4,000 in the reserves.  Within the Pentagon’s personnel system, there are as many as 250 service members in the process of transitioning to their preferred genders or who have been approved to formally change gender.

Reported in an article by Daniel Greenfield in Front Page Magazine, The Transgender Ban Isn’t Fair. Neither is War: 

“As 45% of transgender persons in the 18 to 44 age range are suicidal, this is a serious risk for personnel who are around weapons or operating machinery or aircraft. If this were the only issue, it would be enough to justify the medical ban. Transgender operations and hormone therapy requires constant monitoring by a doctor. They carry serious health risks. Some of those risks require serious medications and ongoing management.  The military demands results, not diversity.”

What about cost to the American taxpayer?

The Rand study touted by transgender advocates claiming that medical expenses will only be in the millions, relies on a statistical bait and switch. The actual cost is estimated to be in the billions.

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R., Mo.), leading opponent of taxpayer-funded sex changes as a member of the House Armed Services Committee and chairman of oversight and investigations, provided internal data to the Washington Free Beacon showing that even by using a conservative estimate, the costs associated with only 0.7 percent of the military population is huge, $1.35 billion.  Calculations included the current number of transgenders now serving and those who are likely to seek taxpayer-funded gender transitions.  The $1.35 billion doesn’t even include additional medical costs of transgender service members, including hormone therapy, mental health service, or costs associated with surgical complications.

In the past Hartzler has pointed out that for $1.35 billion, the Pentagon could purchase 13 F-35 fighters or 14 F-18 Super Hornets.

Trump’s Transgender Ban Applauded

As expressed by Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis (USA-Ret.), Senior fellow for national security at the Family Research Council:

“It’s about time common sense comes to the Pentagon. The president obviously has been consulting with the top leaders in the Pentagon, who are grounded in common sense, and they made recommendations to end it. So the president [has decided to] not go down that path that the Obama administration paved regarding political correctness.”

Retired Colonel Will Merrill wrote the following remarks via a request from Nancy Thorner, who was introduced to Col. Merrill through a friend who likewise lives in Florida:

Col. Merrill served for thirty-one years in the army.  Having graduated from West Point in 1958, he served eleven years overseas and had tours in Germany, Vietnam, Korea and Greece.  He has written two books, 9/11- Ordinary People: Extraordinary Heroes- NYC, the First Battle in the War against Terror!, which includes interviews with Mayor Rudy Giuliani and FDNY Fire Commissioner Sal Cassano and other involved in 9/11 and Ordinary People: Extraordinary Heroes- Afghanistan and Iraq, based on Merrill’s interviews with thirty-five soldiers and family members. His books are available on Amazon.com.

“There is no room for transgender in the military. We can accommodate them in civilian life but it just won’t work in the military. They would not be deploy-able, which would mean that the others would have to deploy more often.  Again, the military was being for social engineering. Reminds me of my first command experience. Robert McNamara, then Secretary of Defense under Project 100,000 let that many unqualified people join the military as a social experiment. My experience was that most of these people were not able to perform even basic military tasks. Many got in trouble with local police and much of my time was spent in working with them and arranging to have them eliminated from the army.”

“I also feel that if transgender people were permitted to join the military, many would do so, solely so they could get expensive sex change operations and medical care from the military. Many would likely leave the military as soon as they could after that.”

President Trump’s policy is the same one that existed for most of Obama’s time in office.  So why now the outrage and the cynical and hypocritical posturing by those in the media.  Military preparedness should not be how the military can accommodate one identity group or another, but how the recruits can be shaped to the needs of the military. The transgender ban is not a moral or a religious policy, but a medical one.  Should the military really be required to deal with the complicated medical and social problems that arise to accommodate transgender troops?

Instead of admitting that Trump was right, and that allowing transgenders to share the showers, barracks and latrines, of female soldiers, made no sense at all, the political poltroons immediately began to spew the typical bilge about Trump’s being a sexist, and that the military should be open to all those transgender patriots who wish to fight for their country…or at least have the country pay for their surgery.

The LGTB culture should be left in peace, but peace is not what the military is about.

Wednesday, August 02, 2017 at 10:05 AM | Permalink