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

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

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

By Nancy Thorner & Bonnie O’Neil – 

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

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

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

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

Lead Plaintiff’s Concerns

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

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

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

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

Political Power Vested Through Dues

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

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

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

• Fortune magazine has consistently ranked the National Education Association in the top 15 of its Washington Power 25 list for influence in the nation’s capital.

• The head of the Chicago Teachers Union had this warning to any mayoral candidate in the 2011 mayor’s race who didn’t toe the teachers’ line: “I think the opportunity is to throw the weight of 30,000 members and their families and students and teachers.  I mean, we’re looking at maybe 800,000 people we could affect on some level.”

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

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

Left-leaning organizations supported by NEA dues include: 

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

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

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

Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 08:26 AM | Permalink

Thorner: Common Sense Prevails in Climate Change Presentation

Saturday, October 17, 2015

Common Sense Prevails in Climate Change Presentation

By Nancy Thorner – 

Despite the push by the UN through its recently approved Agenda 2030 by member nations this past August, the words of President Obama declaring that Global Warming is the most pressing issue this country is facing, and the brainwashing of school children through the Common Core science curriculum that man is responsible for Global Warming, there are still skeptics of global warming who have not been intimidated into remaining silent about what is now a contentious world-wide issue.

One such individual is Steve Goreham, Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America, a speaker and author on environmental issues, a former engineer and business executive, and a father of three.  He is a frequent invited guest on radio and television, as well as a free-lance writer and a policy advisor to The Heartland Institute.  Goreman has authored two books on climate change:  “Climatism! Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century’s Hottest Topic” published in 2010  and The Mad, Mad, Mad, World of Climatism published in 2012.  Steve is now working on his third book.

Steve Goreham was the featured speaker at an event sponsored by the North Shore Tea Party held at the Northfield Community Building on Tuesday, October 13, 2015.  His topic:  “Energy and Climate Change:  The Rest of the Story.”  As Goreham initially related as insight into what was to follow, in light of all the manure that resulted from the popularity of horse drawn carriages (taxis) in cities such as NYC before the automobile, when automobiles replaced horse drawn carriages they were considered the anti-pollutants.

Steve then went on to describe the 20th Century as a “Golden Age for Mankind”, when income increased by a factor of seven times from the proceeding century, along with an increase of life expectancy.  Why?  The driver of both can be attributed to the low cost of energy that ushered in the “Golden Age.”

Global Warming Theory

An equation was developed in the 1970s (I= P A T) during the course of a debate between Barry Commoner, Paul R. Ehrlich and John Holdren. Commoner argued that environmental impacts in the United States were caused primarily by changes in its production technology following World War II, while Ehrlich and Holdren argued that all three factors were important and emphasized in particular the role of human population growth.  Such was the thinking behind the I=P A T hypothesis: that Environmental Impact Increases with Population, Affluence, and Technology.

The “Environmental Kuznets Curve” proves otherwise.  As wealth increases in a nation, its people will address the pollution issue. The air and water in this nation is much cleaner than it was three decades in ago.

The theory of man-man global Warming includes these four components:

• The Greenhouse Effect.
• Rising Atmospheric CO2 Level.
• Rising Global Temperatures
• Computer model projections of temperature readings in the future.

Obsession over Carbon Dioxide

Proponents of man-made global warming obsess over the level of CO2 in the atmosphere (The Greenhouse Effect).  First of all, Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.  CO2 is an odorless, harmless, invisible gas.  We inhale air with little CO2, but breathe out 4% CO2.  Furthermore, Greenhouse Gasses account for only 1% – 2% of the Earth’s atmosphere.  Nature’s most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapor.  Water vapor and clouds account for 75% of the greenhouse effect; natural sources (ocean activity, volcanoes, plants & animals) are responsible for 24%; while only 1% of greenhouse gasses are man-made, making mankind responsible for about 1 part in 100!

Despite the push (and the billions spent) for renewable energy to replace carbon-based sources such as fuel, coal, gas, and oil, the reality is that coal, gas, and oil dominate as power sources. Following is the U.S. Energy consumption by Fuel sources in 2014. As a power source nuclear supplied 8.5%, with Hydro at 2.5%.  Other renewable energy sources, lumped together, supplied a mere 7.3% of energy needs and are broken down accordingly: Biomass (Including Ethanol) 4.8%; Wind, 1.8%; Geothermal, 0.2%; and Solar, 0.4%.

Climate madness in Europe an California

Through his slide presentation, Steve Goreham spoke about climate madness in Denmark where there are 5,000 Wind Towers with an average output of 1.3 GW (A GW is equal to one billion (10⁹) watts or 1 gigawatt = 1000 megawatts.).   All 5,000 Wind Towers in Denmark could be replaced by one Conventional Power Plant!

In Germany there is solar and wind power mania despite limited sunlight in parts of Germany.  German Chancellor Angela Merkel made a massive commitment to ‘renewable’ energy and has gone further down the ‘renewables’ path than any country in the world.  Now it’s paying the price.

A situation in the UK could qualify for an entry in “Believe It Or Not.”  The Drax Power Station in the UK is being powered by wood from the USA!  Not classified as a pollutant, wood burning is allowed in England.  Half of the Drax Power Station, with an output of 3,960 Megawatts, was converted to wood chips at a cost of $1.1 billion. The U.S. ships 7.5 million metric tons of wood per year to Drax Power Station. Even though the plant receives a subsidy of about $1 billion, the cost of electricity produced by Drax Power Station is double the price of what it was before its conversion from coal to wood.

This truism exists in Europe, and the same will exist for this nation if solar and wind mania craze is successful:

The more a country depends on wind or solar power for its energy, the more a country will pay for power.

Europe can no longer afford its green revolution.  Accordingly, subsidies to invest in and develop green energy sources are being cut.

It is not surprising that the state of California is promoting the same renewable energy sources that Europe now perceive as unworkable and expensive.  The California Valley Solar Ranch covers an area of 1,000 acres, 100 times the area of a gas-fire plant.  Its average output of 57 MW amounts to 10% of what a gas fired plant would produce.  Although the California Valley Solar Ranch receives $1.4 billion in federal and state subsidies, the price per kilowatt hour is 15 – 18 cents, three times the current California wholesale rate.

The Role Played by History

History tells us many things, one of them being that weather and climate are not the same thing.  During the Medieval Warm Period (900 – 1300 AD) the Vikings settled in Greenland.  The settlement grew to 5,000 by 1300, but dies out by 1408 as the climate cools.  The Little Ice Age (1300 – 1850 AD) resulted in shorter growing seasons, famine in Europe, and the Thames froze over at London to hold ice fairs on the ice.

In the 20th century, widely reported in the 70’s was the threat of an approaching mini ice age.  Less than thirty years later, the American people were told that 2000 – 2009 represented the warmest years on record.  How could this be so when for the last 18 years, since 1997, there has been no global warming?  To be questioned are the 102 climate models and their faulty projections. Consider also that government record keeping of temperatures only dates back 100 years.

Do 97% of Scientist Believe in Global Warming?

In 2007 the following Global Warming Petition was signed by 31,478 American Scientists, Including 9,029 with PhDs:

“…There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.  Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

How then did the 97% consensus figure of scientists agreeing with man-made global warming originate, which is meant to construe that the science is settled and can no longer be questioned?

It was through an AGU (American Geophysical Union) climate survey sent out seeking the opinions of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find around the world as listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Departments.  Two questions were asked:

1.  When compared with pre-1800 levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2.  Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Of the 10, 257 surveys sent, 3,146 were returned.  Of those returned it was determined 77 of the returned responses came from climate scientists.  Of the 77 climate scientists, 75 had answered “Yes” to question two, so it was concluded that 97% of scientists accepted man-made global warming.

A newer 2013 study shows only 36% of geoscientists and engineers believing in AGW

Al Gore’s War

Al Gore is well known for his war against hydrocarbons, organic compounds made of only hydrogen and carbon atoms found in crude oil and natural gas.  In Gore’s prize winning documentary of 2006, “An Inconvenient Truth”, he tried to make the issue of global warming a recognized problem worldwide.

Even before Al Gore’s war on hydrocarbons in 2006, there was Amory Lovins.  He has been writing misguided books since the 1970’s.  Lovins most recent book with the Rocky Mountain Institute, “Reinventing Fire:  Bold Business Solutions for the New Energy Era”, was published in October of 2011.  Notable is that the forward is by John W. Rowe, who at the time was Chairman and CEO, Exelon Corp.  President Bill Clinton described the book as “A wise, detailed, and comprehensive blueprint.”

It would be foolish to go the way of Europe, when it has become apparent to European leaders that renewable energy sources are responsible for soaring energy prices.  Yet this nation is being told that renewable energy sources represent the future.  How is this so?  It is fact that CO2 is not a pollutant, even though the EPA declared it to be so under the Clean Water Act in 2009. Then too, mankind is responsible for about 1 part in 100 of the Greenhouse Effect in Earth’s Atmosphere.  Yet Illinois and other states have mandated unrealistic and unobtainable goals of how much energy is to be produced by renewable sources at a given time in the not so distant future. Illinois’ renewable mandate status of 25% for 2025 is not on track.  Here are individual State Renewable Portfolio Standard and Goals, updated October, 2015.

It is low cost energy that drives our economy.  Without low cost energy (and there is the miracle of shale shock), not only would electricity rates soar, but the price of all goods would rise and blackouts could result because of insufficient energy supply.  In other words, the American people would experience a reduced standard of living.

Crucial is the UN Paris climate conference to be held from November 30 to December 11. The governments of more than 190 nations will gather in Paris to discuss a possible new global agreement on climate change, aimed at reducing global greenhouse gas emissions and thus avoiding the threat of dangerous climate change.

Educate yourself and challenge the consensus over what many consider a hoax by the elites to gain power and control over the masses.

Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 09:00 AM | Permalink

Comments

Thorner/Ingold: Questions Hillary Needs to Answer as Drip, Drip, Drip Continues

Thursday, October 01, 2015

By Nancy Thorner and Ed Ingold – 

Hillary Clinton’s old emails are popping up everywhere. The State Department found some about Benghazi, the administration some with David Petraeus, and the FBI some that were deleted. The “drip, drip drip,” as Hillary recently described the on-going reporting about her emails, is having some effect on Hillary’s slide in the polls and likewise raising doubts among supporters. But is this enough to derail Hillary’s campaign?

On Sept. 28th “The O’Reilly Factor” examined here the latest in the controversy surrounding the former Secretary of State and presidential hopeful.

Now husband Bill is coming to Hillary’s rescue.

In an interview aired on CNN on Sunday, September 20, Clinton remarked:

“You know, at the beginning of the year, she was the most admired person in public life,” he said. “What happened? The presidential campaign happened. And the nature of the coverage shifted from issue-based to political.” “I have never seen so much expended on so little,” the former president said. “The other party doesn’t want to run against her. And if they do, they’d like her as mangled up as possible.” “She did say she was sorry that her personal email caused all this confusion.”

It must be remembered that Hillary is an attorney and a long time politician. Nothing she does is without some purpose, despite claims to the contrary. The underlying Clinton strategy is to deny allegations and ignore requests for more information. Eventually the news cycle will turn to other things, but if something breaks, the scandal is now “old news,” and eventually reporters will stop asking. Unfortunately for Hillary, Congress has not gotten the message that there’s nothing more to ask.

In the next couple of weeks (October) Hillary will once again appear before the House Select Committee on Benghazi. A good attorney never asks a question which he does not know the answer, and the Republicans on the committee are all attorneys. Here are a few questions which will either elicit good answers or constitute perjury. A candidate running for high office cannot afford to plead the fifth amendment.

•  Question One:  It has been suggested that you used a private email server to shield your communications from FOIA requests. How do you respond to this allegation?

Hillary claims that the State Department knew and approved of her use of a private server. However, State did not qualify their response to requests for emails by Congress or private parties suing for their release. State seemed to be ignoring these requests until a federal judge lowered his hammer. Everybody seemed to be surprised when the Washington Post revealed its existence last March, 2015.

• Question Two: The use of an attorneys to perform certain tasks is called “work product,” which is subject to client-attorney privilege. Was this a lawyerly attempt to conceal the process of separating public from private email and the contents of those messages from the government, public, and ordinary judicial review?

Activities of this nature by attorneys is called “work product” and is protected by the attorney-client privilege. This means the attorney cannot be compelled to reveal any details except under extraordinary circumstances. Hilary claims she did not take a direct role in this process, and theoretically can’t be forced to respond. It is usually done to deny or delay future inquiries. However the attorneys were not authorized to possess classified material even briefly. Commission of a crime is not protected under color of law.

• Question Three: You previously maintained, under oath, that no classified documents were stored, received or transmitted from your private server. The Inspectors General and State Department have determined otherwise. As head of the department, you were ultimately responsible for classification. Please respond to these allegations.

This is proven to be false on both counts, based on the Inspectors General reports, and news from State.

• Question Four: You affirmed, under oath, that all official emails on your server were transmitted to State, yet several hundred emails from you have surfaced which were not in your transmittal. How do you explain this omission?

This too is undeniable. Nearly 900 emails between Clinton and General Petraeous were released by State last week, and none were included in the 50,000 or so printed pages she submitted to State. Secondly, there is a two month gap in emails surrounding the Benghazi incident. It is unbelievable that the Secretary of State had nothing to say other than face to face.

On Wednesday, September 30, it was learned that FBI Director James Comey has started briefing select lawmakers on the status of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private server, confirming that investigators are actively looking for evidence the server was compromised by a foreign entity or hacker.  The same source revealed that FBI Director Comey has reassured lawmakers that his “top people” are handling the investigation and that no resource is being spared.  His team is working “24/7” to determine whether classified information was compromised.

Will the high-stakes investigation be influenced by politics?  Let’s hope that the FBI does its work professionally, even as it’s done in secret so the ability to do due diligence is not jeopardized in any way.

Hilary is an attorney, and historically speaking, not a particularly good nor ethical one. This whole affair has the appearance of someone hiding behind the law. Now it looks like the law might actually tip over and crush Hillary, unlike what the many past Bill and Hillary scandals failed to do.

Thursday, October 01, 2015 at 09:03 AM | Permalink

Thorner: Congress trying to pull a fast one to revitalize Ex-Import Bank

Monday, July 20, 2015

By Nancy Thorner – 

Congressional authorization for the Export-Import bank lapsed as of July 1, 2015. As a result, the bank cannot engage in new business, but it can continues to manage its existing loan portfolio. While closing Ex-Im will help to free the market and end corporate welfare, its advocates are still trying to reauthorize the bank.

Thanks mostly to intense opposition from a large faction of conservative Republicans, including Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, who said the bank was a “waste of tax money” and “a form of corporate welfare”, the federally backed bank was left to expire at the end of June. Not surprising is that some Republicans, including House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and most Democrats, still support the bank’s return, arguing that it helps small businesses and supports U.S. jobs.

 

Linking Transportation Bill to Ex-Import

Now a good probability, and as predicted by Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, senators plan to attach a provision to revive the Export-Import Bank to a transportation funding measure that is headed to the Senate floor. The transportation funding bill is a “must pass” measure that guarantees money for critical highway and infrastructure projects. It needs to clear Congress by the end of this month to prevent summer construction projects from grinding to a halt.

Even though Senate Majority Speaker McConnell (R.Ky.) doesn’t support the extension of the bank, he did strike a deal with Democrats on recently passed trade legislation that allowed a vote on extending the bank, which failed, while later agreeing to attach it to the transportation bill. Notwithstanding, some Republicans, including House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and most Democrats, support the bank’s return, arguing that it helps small businesses and supports U.S. jobs.

If and when the Senate passes the highway bill with the Export-Import Bank provision attached, the House will take it up.  But should the highway bill pass with the attachment, it has been reported that House conservative opposed to the bank will do everything in their power to split the two issues through a parliamentary maneuver, even if it means blocking the resolution to advance the measure and begin debate.

 

Why Ex-Imp bank should remain expired

There are currently 92 members of the House of Representatives who publicly oppose the Bank, as does every major Republican Presidential contender, as well as millions of Americans who have joined the fight against it.

Below are ten facts you should know about the Export-Import Bank that represent crony capitalism:

• Boeing, GE, and Caterpillar received 87% of Ex-Im loan guarantees in FY13.

• The Ex-Im Bank provides export financing for just 0.009 percent of America’s small businesses.

• The vast majority of exporters—98 percent—do not receive assistance from the Ex-Im Bank.

• Export financing doesn’t create new jobs, it merely redistributes jobs across America’s economy.

• Among the top 10 buyers of Ex-Im exports, 5 are state-controlled and rake in millions of dollars from their own governments in addition to Ex-Im Bank subsidies.

• There are 31 open corruption and fraud investigations into the bank.

• The top beneficiaries of Ex-Im also have massive backlogs of orders, meaning jobs would not be lost when the bank expires.

• Ex-Im subsidies benefit China, Venezuela, Cuba, and Russia. State-owned foreign airlines have received $16 billion in subsidized financing since 2009.

• Taxpayers are on the hook for nearly $140 billion in the Ex-Im loan portfolio.

• The companies advocating for the reauthorization of Ex-Im have admitted they do NOT actually need it.

What If Transportation Bill Is Toxic by Itself? 

As stated earlier in this article, the Highway Trust Fund’s authorization will expire on July 31. Long unsustainable, the trust fund contains large diversions for mass transportation and other wasteful projects. Congress is currently considering a 6 month, $11 billion bailout for the fund, but real reform is needed, not bailouts! Here is an excellent backgrounder on the Highway Trust Fund.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL06) have introduced the Transportation Empowerment Act (TEA) which would return control of highway decisions back to the states, thereby eliminating wasteful diversions and ensuring that highway dollars fund highways.

As stated in an article by Michael Sargent, a research assistant at Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, “Why We Can’t Have Nice Highways and Bridges”:

“Every American who buys gasoline pays 18.3 cents per gallon to the federal government’s Highway Trust Fund, which was created in 1956 to pay for the construction and maintenance of the interstate highway system.

But in recent years, the Highway Trust Fund has expanded to spend motorists’ tax dollars on things that have little to do with highways. For instance, the Transportation Alternative Program, created in 2012 to replace a variety of “transportation enhancement” programs and funded out of the Highway Trust Fund, siphons funding that otherwise would go to highway construction to a variety of projects that were traditionally in the hands of local government.”

 

Action to take: Call your Representatives and Senators and ask:

• “Do you plan to vote in favor of bailing out the Highway Trust Fund at the end of July?

• “If the Export-Import Bank reauthorization is attached, how will you plan on voting?”

• Let them know that the Highway Trust Fund has little to do with highways and that the Ex-Import bank stands for crony capitalism.  The bill should be opposed.

Conservatives forced the Ex-Im Bank to shut down and prevented a long term bailout of the Highway Trust Fund last year. This is a critical fight and one that conservatives must win!

 

Monday, July 20, 2015 at 08:57 AM | Permalink

Technorati Tags: closure, Export Import Bank, exports, Illinois Review, imports

Thorner: Jeb Bush embraces New World Order; Common Core provides global education

​

Saturday, March 07, 2015

By Nancy Thorner – 

There is more behind the facade of what Jeb Bush stands for than meets the eye. As detailed in Part 1, “Jeb Bush, a conservative, a moderate, or a globalist,” Jeb didn’t allow challengers to stand in his way when running and winning the governorship three times in Florida. Although it has been reported that Jeb Bush governed as a conservative, in the interim Bush has taken positions that mirror those of Democrats, specifically with amnesty and Common core.

During Jeb Bush’s recent appearance at C-PAC he captured 5th placed percentage-wise. During an interview conducted by Sean Hannity Bush spoke of himself as a “reform-minded conservative.” It is interesting that Jeb Bush was open to a question and answer session with Sean Hannity, but not to a direct confrontation with the C-PAC audience. Of even greater interest is why Jeb Bush is seemingly being pushed as the anointed Republican presidential candidate for 2016.

Part of the answer is found in Phyllis Schlafly’s book, “A Choice Not An Echo.” Schlafly details how in early 1936 a little group of secret kingmakers (prominent financiers and industrialists) laid long-range plans to control the Republican Party. This group has used every trick to dictate the choice of the Republican presidential nominee up to now, although failing in their selections of Bob Dold and John McCain. It was the kingmakers who were responsible for derailing and destroying Senator Barry Goldwater in the election of 1964. For the kingmakers, it was anyone but Goldwater, preferring, as they did, the continuation of the policies of Democrat incumbent Lyndon Johnson to those of Goldwater. With this in mind, there is every reason to believe the kingmakers of today, although faces have changed, are partial to Jeb Bush as the 2016 Republican presidential nominee?

Entities that embrace the “One World, Centralized Political System

The kingmakers are not the only entity who believe Jeb Bush fits the criteria of what a presidential candidate must stand for and represent. The author’s goal is to set forth the tangled web of Common Core as it relates to what the U.N.; non-governmental organizations; and the elitist, establishment members of the Republican Party all wish to achieve in the future: One World Government, often called Globalism.  One World Government is a project of the elites.  It’s presently on track to become the social and political agenda of the 21st century.  Jeb Bush, as a globalist, would lead this nation’s ship in the right direction, while Common Core Standards would enable the process.

The four most influential non-government organizations that embrace the “One World, Centralized Political System” are The Trilateral Commission, The Bilderbergers, The Council on Foreign Relation, and The United Nations.

The Trilateral Commission was founded initially as the brainchild of David Rockefeller in 1973. It was a clique of some two hundred banking, commercial, political and communications leaders.  It was responsible for electing Jimmy Carter, thereafter staffing his administration with essentially the same crowd who had controlled the Republican presidential nominations for so many years.  It was rightly perceived that Carter could be easily controlled.

The Bilderberg Group first met back in 1954 when the most powerful men in the world met at Oosterbeek, Netherlands to debate the future of the world, thereafter they decided to meet annually in secret.  The members represent a who’s who of world power elites, mostly from America, Canada and Western Europe.  These names jumped out at me from the United States:  David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, George Soros, Donald Rumsfeld, Rupert Murdock, along with many, many more.  Check this link to read Daniel Estulin riveting book,“The True Story of the Bilderberg Group,” published in 2005 and updated in a new 2009 edition.

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) was founded in 1921 as a United States nonprofit. It is a 4,900 member organization, publisher and think tank specializing in U.S. foreign policy and international affairs, headquartered in New York City.  Once again this is an elite organization.  Brian Williams was a member of this organization, as is Chuck Hagel.  Not unexpectedly, top U.S. figures at the CFR and the Trilateral Commission are also well represented at the Bilderberg Group.

The United Nations is an intergovernmental organization.  It was established on October 24, 1945, to promote international co-operation as a replacement for the ineffective League of Nations. Headquartered in Manhattan in New York City, the UN had 51 members when founded; it now has 193.  In 1992 the U.N. provided the means for world leaders to embrace and carry forth a One World, Centralized Political System, Agenda 21, also known as “sustainable development.”

U.N. Agenda 21 lays the groundwork

This UN action plan, Agenda 21, was birthed at the 1992 United Nations Rio Earth Summit.  It called for the inventory and control of all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all information, all energy, and all human beings in the world.  Read here for a synopsis of Agenda 21 in one easy lesson. President George H. W. Bush, as a globalist, signed the US on to this plan, as did 178 other world leaders for their nations.

Globalists have made it clear that as a sovereign independent nation, the U.S., with a long tradition of Liberty, cannot be allowed to continue in its existing form, that the U.S. HAS to be brought under “a New World Order. George H.W. Bush once commented (from “Family of Secrets” by Russ Baker):

“If the American people knew what we have done, they would string us up from the lamp posts.”

As both the father and brother of Jeb Bush are globalists, it doesn’t seem out-of-line to conclude that globalism runs in the Bush family.  Bush’s support of America’s Common Core curriculum, in part, is based on the United Nation’s Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESC), “Education for All”. The makeup of UNESC includes the same people and the same ideas as found in the U.S. Education Department’s Common Core.  Not only was Common Core formulated by the UN, but it was “agreed to” by Barack Obama, funded by Bill Gates, and then imposed on the American people through funding schemes of the Department of Education.

Fact or Coincidence?

Senator Lamar Alexander serves as a Republican elected senator from Tennessee and is the ranking Republican member of the Senate committee on Heath, Education, Labor and Pension (HELP). Years ago Lamar Alexander served as George H. W. Bush’s Secretary of Education. It was during Lamar Alexander’s tenure as Bush’s Secretary of Education that he created the New American Schools Development Corporation .  Its goal was education RESTRUCTURING, from Academic Teaching to Skinnerian/Pavolvian.  Its aim was to train children for the Global Workforce so docile workers would be able to follow simple instructions, but not inclined to ask questions. Learn more about Skinnerian/Pavolvian by reading Charlotte Iserbyt book, “Back to Basics Reform Or…OBE *Skinnerian International Curriculum.” It just happens that Lamar Alexander has been a long time member of the Council of Foreign Relations which advocates for One World Government. Recently Senator Lamar Alexander, as the Republican ranking member of HELP, proposed a Senate education bill for the reauthorization No Child Left Behind that would have allowed for the continuation of Common Core.  Most of the Republican senators supported the bill, while Democrat senators were against the bill.

Jeb Bush Support comes from globalists, elite Republicans, and establishment Republicans

Not unlike the big fat cat Republican donors and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, kingmakers and elitist establishment Republicans view amnesty favorably for the cheap labor it provides and view Jeb Bush as the candidate who can deliver amnesty. Disappointment and anger befell conservatives with the capitulation by Boehner and McConnell in allowing funding for President Obama’s illegal executive order that would provide work permits for five million, etc.  There can be little doubt that most rank and file establishment Republicans do support amnesty, believing that being nice to illegals is the key to future electoral success and a pathway for cheap labor.  The rift between establishment Republicans and their conservative counterparts is now being played out through TV ads. The Republican-aligned American Action Network is going after three conservative Republicans for opposing a deal that funded the Department of Homeland Security without rolling back President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration.

Phyllis Schlafly tells a different story about the folly of establishment Republicans in refusing to defund Obama’s illegal executive order in her recent article, “Democrats Plan To Win Elections With Illegal Alien Votes.”

Non-governmental organizations, as the four mentioned earlier in this article, are supportive of Jeb Bush, for as a globalist Bush would be in step with their stated mission of subduing the populous and ushering in world government.  Their mission dovetails with the goal of Common Core to indoctrinate children with the concept of global unification.  As such, Common Core represents a conspiracy of the corporate elitists, the one-world-government types from both side joining together under the UNESCO treaty, item 36 — the binding United Nations Agenda 21 agreement that committed signees to promote universal education. . One of the finest article the author has ever read about Common Core can be found here.

A Jeb Bush candidacy in 2016 must be thwarted

In light of the support Jeb Bush seems to be amassing, there is the good possibility that Jeb, if he hasn’t already, will become the perfect vessel through which Common Core and amnesty can thrive in yet another Bush administration.  As a globalist, President Jeb Bush would also provide the means through which a “One World, Centralized Political System” could continue to go forward.

In that Jeb Bush is an important member of the 20-Member Task Force of the Aspen Institute largely funded by George Soros, Bill Gates, and the NWO banksters, should be all the information needed to conclude that Jeb Bush is not an acceptable Republican candidate in 2016.

May the pubic not be duped by the so-called elites who are already working below the radar to anoint Jeb Bush, believing they know what it best for the nation and for the American people.

Image Source

Saturday, March 07, 2015 at 04:12 PM | Permalink

Technorati Tags: Illinois Review

Thorner & O’Neil: UN promotes Global Warming consistent with Agenda 21 – Part 2

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

By Nancy Thorner and Bonnie O’Neil – 

What should citizens do when confronted with an intrusive, all encompassing government agenda that will eventually affect every aspect of their lives? That is the question we need to be addressing, because United Nations Agenda 21 is a reality, and it already has many countries, including the United States, complying with its mandates.

Information about U.N. Agenda 21 has not been widely published, but neither is it a secret. One only needs to do a minimum amount of research to discover the many tentacles of Agenda 21 and realize it has infiltrated into many of our cities and certainly our country, with the full cooperation of those in our highest positions of authority.

The following is Part 2, of a series to educate more people about the facets of the agenda, including the plan to scare the public into accepting changes in their life style through threats; the main one being man-made Global warming.  For people to make a lifestyle change, those developing the plan needed a tangible, threatening reason to entice the public to quietly comply.  The information below provides facts that should make readers more aware of the changes the “elites” in our world are planning for our future.

In November of 2013, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its “Synthesis Report,” which completed its Fifth Assessment evaluation (AR5) on the Earth’s climate.  IPCC is the pathway through which the environmental proposals of Agenda 21 are being carried out, such as designing compact cities without cars under the guise of sustainability. The IPCC report claims “Human influence on the climate system is clear and growing, with impacts observed on all continents”  However, there is a growing number of critics who will no longer remain or be silenced on this issue.  They deserve to be heard.

Known the world over as a skeptic of man-made Global Warming, The Heartland Institute in Chicago had the fortitude and the courage to publish its own report to counter the U.N.’s AR5 report, using its affiliation with The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change or NIPCC to do so. NIPCC is an international panel of non-government scientists and scholars who have come together to present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming.  Because NIPCC is not a government agency, and because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, it is able to offer an independent second opinion of the evidence reviewed, or not reviewed, by the United Nation’s IPCC on the issue of global warming. Find here the independent Heartland NIPCC report published to counter the U.N.’s 2013 AR5 report.  Read here comments made by 10 Heartland experts about the conclusions reached by AR5.   Check here for another report that takes the U.N.s AR5 report to task.

Obama administration equates global warming with the threat of terrorism

The Obama administration has accepted the dogma put out by scientists who concocted the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in close proximity with Agenda 21, while further endorsing the propaganda as the main cause of Global Warming and linking CO2 to Global Warming.  Just last week President Obama’s new national-security strategy ranked combating climate change as a top priority, and astonishingly claimed it to be at the same level of threat as terrorism, biological emergencies, and nuclear weapons in the hands of rogue states.  A subsequent White House report indicated that the President is committed to confronting the urgent crisis of climate change, largely through national emission reductions, international diplomacy, and commitment to the Green Climate Fund. Rational people continue to demand the subject be given a fair and balanced investigation of all the facts, not the one-sided approach it has been given.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C) was not at all pleased with the President’s new assessment of priorities and national-security strategy, as reflected in this response:

“I doubt [the Islamic State], the Iranian mullahs, or [Russian President] Vladmir Putin will be intimidated by President Obama’s strategy of ‘strategic patience,'” Mr. Graham said. “From their point of view, the more ‘patience’ President Obama practices, the stronger they become.

The Obama Doctrine, or “strategic patience,” has led to a world in chaos. So, while President Obama pursues the debatable man-made global warming fear mongering, the known and highly critical problems affecting national security are given less attention.

MIT Professor Emeritus Richard Lindzen contradicts Global-Warming Alarmists

A recent report by MIT Professor emeritus Richard Lindzen, dismisses global-warming alarmists as a discredited “cult” whose members are becoming more hysterical as emerging evidence continues to contradict their beliefs.  In discussing the cultish nature of the movement,

Professor Lindzen had this to say:

“As with any cult, once the mythology of the cult begins falling apart, instead of saying, oh, we were wrong, they get more and more fanatical. I think that’s what is happening here. Think about it, he said. “You’ve led an unpleasant life, you haven’t led a very virtuous life, but now you’re told, you get absolution if you watch your carbon footprint. It’s salvation!”

Professor Lindzen scoffed accordingly at a New York Times report that acknowledged there is only a 38 percent chance that 2014 was the hottest year on record, and if it was, it was only by two-100ths of a degree:

“Seventy percent of the earth is oceans, we can’t measure those temperatures very well. They can be off a half a degree, a quarter of a degree. Even two-10ths of a degree of change would be tiny but two-100ths is ludicrous. Anyone who starts crowing about those numbers shows that they’re putting spin on nothing.”

In reference to CO2, Lindzen said that until recently, periods of greater warmth were referred to as “climate optimum”; optimum being derived from a Latin word meaning “best.”  Throughout history there have been natural cooling and warming periods.  Climate changes have occurred throughout our planet’s history.

Lord Mockton and others react negatively to Al Gore’s award-winning Oscar documentary of 2006 – “Inconvenient Truth”

The concept of Global Warming, and the idea that CO2 is the main culprit to what is perceived by some as man-made Global Warming, reached the public’s attention with the release of Al Gore’s award-winning Oscar documentary of 2006, “An Inconvenient Truth.”  Gore’s movie should have been called “Al’s Science Fiction Movie” or “Seriously Inconvenient Truths About Global Warming”, because after its release many of what he claimed to be facts, were proven to be false.

Lord Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley and political adviser to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, had many negative comments about Gore’s award-winning documentary, which, amazingly, is still considered by global warming enthusiasts as the gospel truth.  Mockton announced in a more recent article in September of last year on ClimateDepot.com that his scientific satellite data shows the temperatures have remained fairly stable between October 1966 and August 2014, despite a rise in greenhouse gas emissions.  Calling it the “Great Pause,” Monckton wrote, “It is becoming harder and harder to maintain that we face a ‘climate crisis’ caused by our past and present sins of emission.”

Of concern is that much of the false information in Gore’s movie are now being taught as fact in classrooms across this nation, planted within the controversial Common Core curriculum. This recent article (February 5, 2015) by Alex Nussbaum, “Temperatures Rise as Climate Critics Take Aim at U.S. Classrooms”, relates the frustration of those who doubt that humanity is indeed baking the planet.  Roy White, a Texan and retired fighter pilot, shared in Nussbaum’s article how climate change is being presented from only one side in classrooms across this nation, and that Al Gore’s promoting the  statement that “Global warming is an established fact and the debate has ended”, is neither factual or the truth, as more and more scientific evidence emerges proving man-caused global warming to be a myth.

Another excellent critique of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” appeared in New Scientist in October of 2007 and can be read here.

Epilogue:  Wisdom and Truth

Friedrich  August von Hayek (1899-1992) Nobel Laureate of Economic Sciences, left this warning for humanity:

“Ever since the beginning of modern science, the best minds have recognized that “the range of acknowledged ignorance will grow with the advance of science.” Unfortunately, the popular effect of this scientific advance has been a belief, seemingly shared by many scientists, that the range of our ignorance is steadily diminishing and that we can therefore aim at more comprehensive and deliberate control of all human activities. It is for this reason that those intoxicated by the advance of knowledge so often become the enemies of freedom.”

As more American city, county, and state governments are duped by the global warming fanatics (alarmists) into initiating new harsh laws and removing individual freedoms, the public can no longer afford to yawn and ignore U.N. Agenda 21 and all its tentacles into our lives. We must remind ourselves of Thomas Jefferson’s warning:   “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.  I do not add “within the limits of the law”, because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

Part 1: Thorner & O’Neil:  Fighting climate change through compact cities without cars, Wednesday, Februrary 4, 2015

Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 01:23 PM | Permalink

Technorati Tags: Agenda 21, global warming, Illinois Review

Thorner: Dold votes to support Obama’s lawlessness

Tuesday, February 03, 2015

By Nancy Thorner – 

Looking ahead to today, the Senate will hold a procedural vote on the House-passed version of the DHS funding bill that defunds Pres. Obama‘s unconstitutional executive amnesties, H.R.240, at 2:30 p.m. ET. The vote, which requires 60 votes to pass, will simply allow the bill to come to the Senate floor for debate. The deadline for the Department of Homeland Security funding is February 27, so there is no time to waste if elected Republican legislators were ever serious in keeping promises made during the campaign to defund President Obama’s illegal executive amnesty mandate.

What will happen in the U.S. is still up for grabs, but not so in the U.S. House. Having supported 10th District Rep. Bob Dold in his successful bid to unseat Democrat Brad Schneider in November of last year, I was not pleased when as one of seven members of the U.S. House, and the only Republican representative from Illinois, Dold voted NO for the Department of Homeland Security funding bill that prohibits the Executive Branch from taking action to carry out the unilateral amnesty for illegal aliens that President Barack Obama ordered in last December. The final tally: Members of Congress voted 236 to 191 in favor of denying Homeland Security funding.

Also voted down by Bob Dold and his six fellow renegade Republican was an amendment, sponsored by Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL), that prohibited any agency of the federal government from using any funds to carry out the immigration actions that Obama has ordered under memoranda issued by himself and his subordinates.  This amendment was included in the House bill, having passed on a separate vote of 237 to 190.

Curious over Dold’s YES vote on funding amnesty for illegals, I decided to investigate Dold’s voting record since he was sworn in as a U.S. legislator in January of this year for his second term, having served his first term in Congress from 2010 – 2012.  So far there have been only three legislative votes required by Dold, all having House Republican backing.

Dold’s voting record:

• Keystone XL Pipeline Act – YES.

• Amnesty-Stopping DHS Appropriations Bill – NO.

• No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion – YES.

Two out of three Republican-initiated House votes is not a horrendous record for Dold and his 10th District constituents, but this is only the first inning of Dold’s term.  Stopping DHS Appropriation Bill funding was and still is an issue of great importance to Republican voters.

Admittedly, had I taken the time to read Bob Dold’s statement on immigration when running for Congress, “Making Immigration Work”, I could have expected Dold to vote as he did.  The final statement of Dold’s immigration stance reads:

“It’s time that our government provide those who are contributing to our society a pathway out of the shadows and an opportunity to become part of the American dream.”

How can Rep. Bob Dold be so out-of-touch with what is of importance to Republican voter?

• Doesn’t Dold know that this nation has the most generous legal immigration system in the world, admitting each year more legal permanent resident immigrants, with a clear path to full citizenship, than all the rest of the nations of the world combined?

• Doesn’t Dold know that Obama’s mandate violates the basic concept of the U.S. Constitution, that we the people govern ourselves through our elected representatives through a deliberative process of checks and balances, not through the unilateral pronouncements of a president?

• Doesn’t Dold realize that what he voted for would affect the job prospects of 9 million unemployed Americans, 2.9 million of whom are considered long-term unemployed, and another 7 million officially recognized as involuntary part-time workers because they want but can’t find full-time work, and another 2.2 million who want and are available for work and have looked for work in the past year, including 800,000 designated as discouraged workers who have given up?

• Doesn’t Dold realize how the expanded legal work force would affect the future prospects for 46 million Americans, almost one in six, who are surviving on food stamps? Although the official unemployment rate is now 5.8%, still high but coming down, it’s 10.9% for African-Americans, 18.6% for American teenagers, and 32.6% for African-American teenagers. Are we okay with that? How does giving 5 million more immigrants work authorization and adding them to the legal work force affect those groups?

Does Bob Dold really wish to branded as a Republican congressman who supported President Obama’s lawlessness?  Such a label might appeal to Democrats and to some independents, but there is an “R” behind Dold’s name!

There must be border security before all else.   Even the announcement by President Obama of his Executive Order has telegraphed to the world that if you manage to cross the border you will not be sent back, but that in time amnesty will be granted, along with a myriad of free social welfare programs, to enjoy at the expense of American taxpayers.

Tuesday, February 03, 2015 at 10:40 AM | Permalink

Thorner: Chicago’s 10th Annual March for Life attracts over 4,000 participants

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Thorner: Chicago’s 10th Annual March for Life attracts over 4,000 participants

Chicago Bears’ owner Pat McCaskey declared his support for life Sunday

By Nancy Thorner – 

For the 10th year, the Annual March for Life in Chicago was held Sunday, January 18 to commemorate what is now the 42nd year since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe vs Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide. Chicago Bears’ owner Pat McCaskey and Congressmen Dan Lipinski and Peter Roskam were featured speakers.

This year’s march was on a beautiful day in contrast to the brutally cold weather that greeted participants of last year’s rally. Because of the relatively mild weather, the attendance at Sunday’s rally set a record, 4,000 strong.

Chicago’s Federal Plaza at 50 W. Adam, where the rally began, overflowed with participants holding yellow balloons distributed for the occasion, and signs, if not homemade, were readily available. The signs were  proudly displayed and held high, as participants walked the few blocks from the Federal Plaza to the James R. Thompson Center to continue the second half of the rally. The ralliers marched to the beat of drums and joyful singing, with policemen on motorcycles shepherding the marchers through the streets of Chicago.

Orthodox church leaders, such as the Right Reverend Anthony, Bishop of Toledo, and the Right Reverend Paul, Bishop of Chicago and the Midwest, set the mood for the afternoon with their opening prayers. As alluded to “One can either believe they come from someone or come from no one.  Life does matter as a creation of God, and not if life is foreign to God.”

Initial greetings were extended to the assembled by a vibrant and attractive Mary Louise Kurey Hengesbaugh, who as Miss Wisconsin of 1999, is the author “Standing with Courage: Confronting Tough Decisions about Sex.”

Time after time Ms. Hengesbaugh, who served as Master of Ceremonies at both the Federal Plaza and Daily Plaza, asked this question, “Chicago, are you prolife?”  The response was always a resounding “YES!”

 

  

First to speak at Daley Plaza was Chicago’s three generation pro-life team, the Scheidlers.  With Eric Scheidler, Executive Director of the Pro-Life Action, was his dad, Joe Scheidler, who is known fondly as the “grandfather of the pro-life movement,” and Eric’s son, Sam Scheidler. The traditional black fedora was on full display by Joe Scheidler and son Eric. (Surely Eric Scheidler’s son, Sam, will don a fedora by next year as he follows in the footsteps of his grandfather and father.)

Eric Scheidler asked each participant to commit one hour a week to praying outside an abortion clinic. With 551 abortion clinics in the U.S., most have never been visited by a pro-life activist, he said.

Pro-life Pastor Mark Jobe of New Life Community Church spoke on behalf of the 65 million unborn children not able to raise voices of their own. He asked the crowd to remember that God is the one who opens and closes the womb. Pastor Jobe then spoke about the birth of his three children and how he and his wife were told that their 3rd child would be born with some from of abnormality. Aborting was not an option, for the Divine Law informs that every human being is born with dignity in the image of God. Despite the doctors’ warnings, Jobe’s third child was born healthy and at 15, stood at his dad’s side.

The New Archbishop of Chicago, Blaise Cupich, was firm in his support of Chicago’s March for Life.  He said being at the rally was a signal that we will all walk with a mother that might be afraid or poor.  “I’m proud to be able to walk with people who are concerned about the protection of human life from the first moment of conception to the last moment of natural death,” he said.

Always impressive, Dr. Erwin Lutzer, senior pastor of Chicago’s Moody Church, read a letter from a young girl who wished she had not had an abortion, but she had no place to go and no alternative. Dr. Lutzer questioned how many would be willing to help young girls and women who don’t have a place to live, further emphasizing that the pro-life community must be willing to help those in need.

As the final speaker at opening rally at Federal Plaza, Katie Melody, president of Loyola Students for Life, spoke passionately about how abortion hurts her generation the most. Her fellow students have all come of age when destroying the life of a pre-born is considered the normal thing to do.  Accordingly, her generation are all survivors of the culture of death, she said.

Without missing a beat, rally participants marched the several blocks to the James R. Thompson Center, mostly disregarding the pro-abortion protesters along the way. A joyful atmosphere prevailed, unlike the grim faces  and angry words that came from the protesters.

Sandra Hiltebrand was ready to address the reassembled pro-lifers at the Thompson Center.  Standing with Sandra Hiltebrand was her daughter Julie Cooper, and her granddaughter, Mary Cooper, representing three generations of pro-lifers. They shared the importance of having profound respect for the culture of life from conception until natural death. “Life is precious,” Hiltebrand said. “We are created in the likeness of God.”

Chenelle Moore presented a moving testimony about what having an abortion did to her.  As a young woman, Moore went to Planned Parenthood for help, and had an abortion on Feb. 19, 2011.  Along with her child dying, a part of Chenelle also died, she said. For Chenelle, it was important to let others know they are not alone, that help is out there.

As pro-life is a bi-partisan issue, two pro-life U.S. congressman were featured, one Democrat and one Republican.

Representative Dan Lipinski (D -IL 3) joined the crowd across party lines and generations, to uphold the dignity of all human beings.  Congressman Lipinski announced that this week Congress would be passing an abortion ban of 20 weeks after gestation.

Congressman Peter Roskam (R – IL 6) shared a post from his daughter’s social media blog after attending last year’s March for Life event.  The year-old post of Roskam’s daughter, encouraged his daughter’s college friend to seek help and choose life for her unplanned baby.

Chicago Bears’ co-owner Pat McCaskey was greeted enthusiastically as a fellow pro-lifer as he approached the podium.  McCaskey displayed creativity, with a sprinkling of humor, as he read his pro-life adaption of Tennyson’s poem, “The Charge of the Light Brigade,” naming his Tennyson version, “March of the Brigade.”

A fitting finale for this year’s March for Life Chicago event was Abby Johnson, former Planned Parenthood manager.

Abby Johnson spoke of her checkered childhood during which her parents never gave up on her. Abby believes that no one is beyond conversion through the power of God.  Abortion was noted as a human rights issue. When Abby came to a pregnancy crisis center, Aid for Women was there for her.  Upon seeing pictures of her baby, the future of Abby’s life was changed. Her child Max, is now an amazing gift to her life.

Looking around the rally sites were pro-life citizens of all ages and ethnic backgrounds who were drawn together to tell Chicago that life matters.  Participants came from throughout the state of Illinois and from the neighboring states of Wisconsin and Indiana. It was harkening to see so many like-minded individuals gathered together, in what will surely provide a source of inspiration to go out and spread the word that the sanctity of human life does matter from conception to death.

May next year’s Life for March Chicago rally top this year’s outstanding one. This can happen, for as expressed by several of the

speakers, more and more young people are becoming pro-life, as they contemplate who might be missing as fellow classmates had abortion not been the chosen option?

Photos by Barrett Weadick of Wauconda

 

Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 02:32 PM | Permalink

Technorati Tags: abortion, Chicago, Illinois Review, March for Life

Thorner: John Stossel discards liberalism for libertarianism – Part 2 of Heritage event in Chicago

Saturday, December 20, 2014

By Nancy Thorner – 

The Heritage Foundation Luncheon on Friday, December 12 spear headed Jim DeMint, President of The Heritage Foundation, as Master of Ceremonies. Prior to the luncheon a panel discussion had taken place during which time DeMint and Michael Needham, Chief Executive Officer of Heritage Action for America, discussed “A Bold Agenda for a Better America, Taking on the 114th Congress.” See Part 1 for write up.

John Stossel, Fox Business Network Host and Commentator, gave the keynote luncheon address. Prior to Stossel’s remarks, Governor-elect Rauner offered some special remarks of his own. Introduced by Illinois native Steven Moore, Rauner was described by Moore as not a criminal, as  knowing economics, as not being owned by any one, and believing that Chicago could be a great city and the next Hong Kong if he succeeds.

Bruce Rauner spoke about restoring the American dream for Illinoisans.  Said Rauner: “It’s not how much we spend, but how and why we are spending the money we do.”  Rauner intends to take on the core elements of the spending process to eliminate waste and fraud.  In speaking about his agenda, Rauner expressed high aspirations. Rauner’s agenda items include: 1) Ethics reform; 2) substantial tax reform; and 3) school choice.  Noted by Rauner was that for years Illinoisans had elected individuals based on promises, only to discover later on that many had turned out to be unprincipled and even corrupt   For success to happen Rauner needs a big team effort.  An invitation was extended to attend Rauner’s inauguration in Springfield on January 12, 2015.

President Jim DiMInt introduced John Stossel.   DeMint, in explaining why John Stossel had been chosen to speak at The Chicago Heritage Foundation event, noted: Stossel is despised by Democrats who are suspicious of free market and capitalism, and not particularly popular with conservatives because he believes in personal freedom, but as an advocate of the Free Market System, Stossel is in step with The Heritage Foundation.  Having started his career in viewing the marketplace as a cruel place where you need intervention by government and lawyers to protect people, after watching regulators work Stossel came to the realization that the free market provides the protectors of the consumer.

Agile and looking younger than his chronological age of 67, John Stossel bounded onto the stage, and positioning himself behind the podium, he quipped, unapologetic for being a Libertarian:  “Born and raised in Illinois, I escaped Illinois, but you didn’t.”  Born in Chicago Heights, Illinois, Stossel is a graduate of New Trier High School.  Although a stutterer early in life, Stossel over time conquered this speech problem which could have derailed his career.

John Stossel spoke of being trained as a liberal consumer reporter.  Believing rules were needed because life was complex, Stossel whole heartedly endorsed regulations, only to watch them fail.   As to the The Department of Consumer Affairs, Stossel spoke about licensing requirement for repair shops.  Licensing, however, didn’t protect customers.  30 years later repair shops, despite being licensed, were still fooling consumers and not giving consumers what they were promised to expect.

Stossel believes in invisible spontaneous order to help people organize their lives. Simply put, spontaneous order is what happens when you leave people alone, when entrepreneurs see the desires of people and then provide for them.  Admittedly, many Americans believe central planning works best.  To illustrate why competition works (free market) much better than government, and how it is better and more productive than relying on a handful of elites in some distant bureaucracy, Stossel spoke of communist-era automobile disasters. The East German Trabant, with its sputtering two-stroke engine and resinated paper-mache bodywork, barely deserved the devotion lavished on it by that country’s frustrated car-lovers, yet it was the best car a planned economy could produce and mediocre at best!  Consider also the Yugo built in Soviet-bloc Yugoslavia, which earned the reputation of being the worst car in history.

And what about OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Association), the main federal agency charged with the enforcement of safety and health legislation.  OSHA would make people safe.  Trumpeted was how fatalities had dropped since the beginning of OSHA?  “Not so,” said Stossel.  Free people will make the adjustments needed when an accident happens, treating accidents as free market problems without government interference.

Consider also the “War of Poverty.”  Poverty was decreasing even before the War on Poverty began.  The programs established to decrease poverty only encouraged and taught people to be dependent and remain in poverty.  And what about wars fought in other countries to protect this nation?  In prior generations government would shrink after wars ended, but not anymore.

Stossel, in looking back over the years and the many issues he confronted as a consumer reporter, expressed embarrassment that it took him 15 years before he really woke up to the fact that almost everything government attempts to do makes it worse.  As Stossel tells it:  His work as a correspondent for 20/20 and a consumer reporter for “Good Morning America” stems back to 1981. Stossel was named co-anchor of 20/20 in May of 2003, where eight to 10 million people watched his program weekly.  Stossel’s discovery ofReason while co-anchoring 20/20 — a libertarian monthly print magazine covering politics, culture, and ideas — was cited by Stossel as the impetus that channeled his movement toward embracing Libertarian beliefs.  In October of 2009 Stossel left his long-time employment at ABC News to join the Fox Business Channel and Fox News Channel.  He presently hosts a weekly news show on Fox Business and regularly provides analysis on various Fox News programs, including a weekly appearance on The O’Reilly Factor.  Additionally, Stossel writes a Fox News Blog, “John Stossel’s Take,” and has been a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist since February of 2011.  His article appear in online publications such as Newsmax, Reason, and Townhall. To Stossel’s credit, he has received 19 Emmy Awards and has been honored five times for excellence in consumer reporting by the National Press Club.

John Stossel, as a believer in the free market system, is reaching out to high school and college students through his DVDs.  His new Economics DVD, published this year, “The Power of Markets vs the failure of Regulation,” uses segments from recent shows to compare and contrast resource allocation based on market decisions with the actual effects of allocation caused by government regulation of the market. His first DVD, published in 2011 is titled “Making Economics Come Alive” with John Stossel.  Both of the Economics DVDs are designed for high school and college students and sell for $19.95. Both can be ordered for a special price of $29.95.

In working with high school students, Stossel asks this question:  There are 7 billion people in the world. 2 billion of them live on a buck or two a day.  Why do we do well and others live in poverty?  Responses from students:  1) Because we are a democracy, 2) Because we have lots of resources, and 3) Because of over population.

Stossel then inquires students to think about India noting, “While India is overpopulated, so is New Jersey. What about Hong Kong?  It isn’t a democracy, and it has no natural resources, yet in 50 years it went from the third worst city to the first in the world.  Why?  Because Hong Kong honors a rule of law that dictates not to kill or steal from each other.  Hong Kong also has economic freedom.  It is free people left alone that made Hong Kong rich.”

In Hong Kong it’s possible to open a business in only one day. In India it would take a year to do so.  Stossel then related about trying to open a lemonade stand in NYC.  He gave up after 60 days.  There is a teachable moral:  If and when fewer people are unable to open businesses because of imposed restrictions and rules, more people will remain poor.

In closing, Stossel indicated there were two ways to do business:  by force or voluntary.  But for business to flourish both parties must win. It is economic freedom that brings prosperity.

Big government makes us poor and makes us less (we become smaller). On a positive note Stossel added this thought: “Despite all the controls, this nation has continued to proper and grow despite government restrictions.”

The Question and Answer session offered several comments worth noting .

• How can big government be trusted when government can’t even count votes correctly?

• Stossel’s defined the EPA as standing for ENOUGH PROTECTION ALREADY.

• The first thing Stossel would like to see Rauner do is for Rauner to embarrass the stranglehold control of unions.

Stossel has written three books.  His most recent book, “No, They Can’t:  Why Government Fails – But individuals Succeed”, was published on April 10, 2012.  Read here a review of the book. The book can be purchased at Amazon.com.   Stossel’s first book, “Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media”, published in 2005, is an autobiography that documents Stossel’s career and philosophical transition from liberalism to libertarianism.

DeMint’s closing remarks looked ahead to 2016.  Of importance: 1) to preserve those things we know work, 2) to recognize the importance of informed and engaged citizens, 3) to look back at programs that lifted people out of poverty, and 4) to create an environment so people with wrong ideas will do the right things

Part 1: DeMint proposes a bold agenda for a better America – Thursday, Dec. 18, 2014

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2014/12/thorner-heritages-jim-demint-proposes-a-bold-agenda-for-a-better-america.html#more  –   December 20, 2014 at 07:15 AM | Permalink

Thorner: Wrong Kind of Govrnment Breeds Cronyism

Monday, November 17, 2014

Thorner: Wrong Kind of Government Breeds Cronyism

By Nancy Thorner – 

Americans’ rights and prosperity are being threatened by cronyism, Ayn Rand Institute’s Steven Simpson said last week during a symposium hosted by Heartland Institute in Chicago.

“The issue is that government has too much power and has strayed far beyond its proper purpose of protecting rights,” Simpson declared.

Simpson’s definition of “cronyism” differs from the explanations typically offered by Democrats, Republicans and independents.

Special Interests and CronyismAfter stating how appropriate it was to be in Chicago so soon after the elections, Simpson said those on the Right, the Left and Libertarians all complain about cronyism in much the same way.

• Cronyism is to gain money and influence.
• Cronyism involves business and government colluding to redirect favors to others.
• The economy itself is crony capitalism.

Ralph Nader’s latest book, “Unstoppable”, sets forth the concept that corporations equal cronyism.  As such Nader wants to abandon the corporate state.

Simpson doesn’t give much credence to the conventional view that special interest are influencing our political system and skewing it at the expense of many.  True, money is spent to finance political causes — $3.9 billion in the recent November elections — but what is the problem with politicians being financed?  Is this corruption?

A bigger problem is why so many individuals want to influence the political system, at which point Simpson defined special interest groups as:  “A group of people voluntarily accountable with one another to influence the political process.”   Followed by:  “What is wrong with that?”

Big Business and Cronyism

As to the belief that cronyism involves business and government colluding to redirect favors to other, this likewise must be evaluated.  Issues arise because of the way people perceive cronyism from different political angles or points of view.  But even individuals on the opposite side of the political spectrum seem to see big business as a bull Tim Carney of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in his book, “The Big Ripoff”, advances how big businesses work with statist politicians to diminish the prosperity and freedom of consumers, taxpayers, and entrepreneurs.

On the Left, Nick Cristoff of the New York Times in an Opinion piece, “Crony Capitalism Comes Home,” argues to take crony out of capitalism.

Just maybe something is wrong with our political system that requires people to band together and businesses to collude with government to influence political outcome?  Are bad people involved?  Might we have a political system that doesn’t allow people to operate freely?

What happens when people think that bad people are influencing a good system?  Just what is the take away or the result?  The natural outcome is that there is an attempt to restrain the bad people with term limits, etc.  Consider the IRS scandal which happened because it was decided that Tea Party groups had too much influence with politics. Consider also the attempt recently to restraint political speech on Facebook and the Internet. The threats from Washington to stifle freedom, entrepreneurship and creativity online have never been greater. Washington politicians want the money, and they want more and more control over our speech.

Cronyism, a Packaged Deal

Simpson spoke of cronyism as a packaged deal, where “Big is Bad” and “Influence is Bad”.  However, the difference between big government and big business is that big government does too much, that having the experts it knows best, while business grows big by satisfying its customers.

While special interest group can’t force government to accede to their wishes, government has the power to force people to do what it wants them to do.  Government controls through the force or laws of regulations.  If government influences what we are able to do, it is only natural that individuals want to influence government.  Consider Comcast and the issue of “net neutrality”.   Comcast wants to be able to charge people special rates and doesn’t want government to control their own property.  The government, however, wants to decide what “net neutrality” looks like and what Comcast may charge.  The result:  Comcast lobbies government.  Bigger guys can naturally influence government more!

Through lobbying, businesses try to influence what shouldn’t exist in the first place, which kills innovation. Government with its power to tax also has the ability to destroy. Individuals and interest groups give money to help candidates win who reflect their interests, such as “Vote for me and I’ll raise taxes on the rich” or “Vote for me and I’ll favor labor over business.”   Individuals accordingly use the power of government for protection or to benefit themselves.

Growth of Government

What kind of government do we have?  To most people the response would be “a democracy.”  In 2008 Obama proclaimed he had received a mandate from the people to radically change this nation.  According to President Obama, what the majority wants, the majority gets!   Does government really exist so what the majority wants the majority gets?  Doing something for the public good means that one group of people will be sacrificed for another.

Our system of democracy calls for the establishment of interest groups to influence politics.  If we believe that interest groups are corrupt, then our democracy is also corrupt.  What we now have is a sort of de facto democracy when government has more control than “We the People.”  When government becomes our enemy, people have no choice but to try to influence it and then decide what government must keep its hands off.

The concept of government by our Founding Fathers was a limited one to protect individual rights. The growth of government is not an accident. Through the years government has been created that has a monopoly on power.  The downfall of such a government is that government can’t force people to be productive.

Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians are guilty of misunderstanding government power and the use of force in our lives.  Big business is seen as operating like pirates (as bad people), yet it is government regulations that control what businesses do.  Government, because of its power, actually legalizes crime through its power to control and tax.  Businesses then try to defend themselves to receive some sort of break or concession to reduce government power.

The history of taxation was presented as a wonderful example of cronyism. Taxes can remain high with set tax rates if all sorts of exemptions (loopholes) are provided to give little bits of crumbs of freedom to string along taxpayers.

Mobsters, knowing they are corrupt, are slightly more honest than government which is clothed in moral authority.  People who seek power over our lives don’t want clear laws.  Accordingly, unclear laws lead to cronyism when the meaning of the law is interpreted by different people in different ways.  Some of the confusion that exists today lies in the unclear ways some of the provisions of the Constitution were originally written, specifically:  commerce and taxing power.  According to Steve Simpson, these two powers are responsible for the tremendous growth that has taken place in government.

Non-delegation Doctrine Abused

Attributing to government control is the disregard for the doctrine of non-delegation — that one branch of government must not authorize another entity to exercise the power or function which it is constitutionally authorized to exercise itself.  It is explicit or implicit in all written constitutions that impose a strict structural separation of powers.  Only rarely has the Supreme Court invalidated laws as violations of the non-delegation doctrine. Exemplifying the Court’s legal reasoning on this matter, it ruled in the 1998 case Clinton v. City of New York that the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, which authorized the President to selectively void portions of appropriation bills, was a violation of the Presentment Clause, which sets forth the formalities governing the passage of legislation.  With Dodd-Frank, Congress abdicated its responsibility to set clear rules of the road. The legislation is complicated and contains substantial ambiguities, many of which will not be resolved until regulations are adopted, and even then, many questions are likely to persist that will require consultation with the staffs of the various agencies involved.

Simpson believes the entire regulatory system is unconstitutional. Even so, business groups are bracing for an onslaught of regulations.  With many unfinished policy goals and the midterm elections now in the past, the Obama administration is determined to complete a host of President Obama’s unfinished Businesses and interest group therefore act in self-defense against government and behave morally when fundamental power comes from government. The sugar industry was cited as the beneficiary of cronyism for many years.

A Solution?  

Steve Simpson was at a loss to come up with a clear solution to counter the system of government that is in place, for It is the type of government we have. Businesses must defend their right to influence government for the right reasons.  Simpson spoke about the Koch brothers being vilified by Democrats as rich businessmen who fund Republicans.

It stands to reason that more government brings more cronyism, but how to untangle the mess that we have created?  Young people must be educated about the consequences of cronyism and how regulations stifle innovation.

About the ARI (Ryn Rand Institute), it is a nonprofit organization headquartered in Irvine, CA.  It works to introduce young people to Ayn Rand’s novels, to support scholarship and research based on her ideas, and to promote the principles of reason, rational self-interest, individual rights and laissez-faire capitalism to the widest possible audience. The Institute is named for novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand (1905 – 1982), who is best known for her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.  

The ARI on Tour event spotlighting Steve Simpson on Nov. 11 was the third of ten scheduled ARI on Tour events that will take place in Chicago during 2014 -2015.  The first event was held in September, with the final tour event scheduled for June, 2015.  December’s event will feature Onkar Ghate. His topic: Religion vs. Freedom.

In promoting its mantra of a free society, the monthly ARI on tour events are likewise presented at venues in Irvine, CA; New York, New York; and Palo Alto and San Francisco, CA.  Steve Simpson is just one of many experts at ARI who advocate ideas and principles that will place this nation on the road to a free society through engaging Americans across the country to help change the direction of this nation and its culture.  Tour information can be found here.

Monday, November 17, 2014 at 11:20 AM | Permalink