By Nancy Thorner and Bonnie O’Neil

The once rarely used word, “sustainability”, has become rather common today, arguably overused by those who want to make changes in our World. provides two meanings for the word:  “1. The ability to be sustained, supported, upheld, or confirmed. 2. Environmental Science: the quality of not being harmful to the environment or depleting natural resources, and thereby supporting long-term ecological balance.”

However, the word has morphed into something quite different. The contemporary explanation has been defined by Webster Dictionary as: “One that tends to fair rules, social justice, and reconnects the economy with what is right and just.”

Do you see the problem with the contemporary definition of “sustainability?”

It is ambiguous, leaving open the obvious question of who among us decides what is fair, right, and just.  Possibly that is why the term has gained such popularity. It means different things to different people, and thus a solid definition is difficult for the average person to discern, leaving the interpretation open for a political advantage. We are left with more questions than we have answers to the word’s meaning and intent.

We do know there seems to be a compulsion for overuse, even abuse of the word, as if the word itself is a solution,  rather than a descriptive word identifying what we hope to accomplish.  A perfect example is the debate over climate change. Even though there is a growing controversy as to whether man can either cause or prevent a change in our climate, our President boldly claimed man-made climate change is “established science, and the greatest threat to future generations”, emphasizing the need for sustainable solutions. Nevertheless, many scientists have rightly claimed that such a catastrophic threat is simply not true, as evidence clearly shows Earth’s climate is in a perpetual state of change, and has been for thousands of years.

Skepticism began to surface in some circles, when it was discovered that leading Climate scientists were told to cover up the inconvenient fact that according to satellite records, temperatures have not risen in the last 15 years to 18 years and three months. It comes as no surprise that the cover up was under-reported and/or completely ignored by the mainstream media.

Global warming promoters continually connect their claim of global warming with the word “sustainability”, and suddenly everyone is expected to put intelligence and any opposing facts aside to blindly believe the improbable proposition that man has the power to significantly change or control our climate. While we fully understand the need to protect our water ways and Earth from pollution and correct any known pollution problems, we also must fight against any agenda designed to mislead the public in order to serve a specific political purpose. We must not be misled into believing that there is absolute, irreversible proof that man has the power to seriously impact the world’s climate, and use that as an excuse to initiate draconian laws.

What many may not know is there is a growing number of scientists and investigative reporters who have dared to stray from the White House and U.N.’s  politically correct opinion on issues, especially those which claim global warming and/or climate change is man induced. The reason the public is unaware of this, is because the opposing  scientists find it difficult to get their documented research or opinions  published.  Instead, the public is inundated with regurgitated information that aligns with the politically correct viewpoint, and little attention is given to any other opposing scientific evidence or conclusions.

The Heartland Institute, according to “The Economist”, is “the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change”. It stands in direct contrast to the United Nation’s scientific body, the IPCC  (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), whose questionable scientific research forms the basis of the scare tactics being employed by Al Gore, the Obama administration, and members of the United Nations.  See here to view the full Archive of the 10th International Climate Change Conference event organized by the Heartland Institute,  which has hosted ten International Conferences on Climate Change since 2008, the latest in June 2015.

The 10th International Conference on Climate Change attracted some 450 scientists, economists, policy experts, and guests worldwide who were not hesitant to question and conclude that man has little, if any influence upon the climate.


The Public Wants Honesty From Its Leaders

Granted, facts are often boring, but it would be helpful if those of us who yearn for the truth on any and all controversial issues could receive uncensored facts, rather than information meant only to advance a particular goal or political agenda. Maybe that is why Donald Trump, in his quest for the presidency, has become so popular and quickly jumped ahead of all the other 16 Republican candidates. He actually verbalizes what so many of us are thinking, and refuses to blindly follow the politically correct course.

Trumps’ bluster and bluntness is actually refreshing to those who have grown tired of the politically correct “white washing” of any issue that is at all divisive.  That leads to these obvious questions: 1) Why are we so hesitant to state our own opinions on controversial issues?  2) Why do we stay quiet while words like “sustainability” are used to excess, and often used to stop opposing conversations?  These tactics should be identified as a form of bullying opponents into silence.   Unfortunately,  that method has proven to be effective.

Could the “Donald” have inadvertently started a new trend in politics?  Does his immediate jump in approval ratings testify to a public yearning for open dialogue and blunt speech? Whether the man wins the Republican primary or not, he has opened the door to expose a different style candidate with a radically unusual style of communication that seems to be appealing to many citizens, while resented by the political Washington D.C. “establishment”.

It seems highly probable that the public’s immediate approval of Trump is sending a message that the public yearns for something that has been foreign in elections for quite some time:  the unfiltered truth!   Voters want more honesty and less politically correct speech.  We are more forgiving of a politician misspeaking on occasion, than those sounding as if every word out of their mouth was first tried and tested by a team of P.C. experts.  We do not want politicians that need or rely upon a teleprompter, but instead those who speak from the heart and believe every word they are saying, and who will honor their promises once elected.  We long for true patriots who will defy the status quo when necessary; who will fight for the people rather than serve self-interests.  It is therefore essential that we not be fooled by fancy words or rhetoric that we find problematic, or buy into words with obscure meanings and a political agenda, such as “sustainability” and the U.N. agendas.

As the pre-election activities progress, Trump may lose his lead to another Republican candidate who emerges with the gravitas, experience, confidence, and character that people believe will best lead America into the future.  If so, let us hope none forget that people crave honest, open dialogue, and for that we must thank the Donald.

Our new president must be equipped for a World that holds more surprises and challenges than ever before. When we find that candidate who best represents our values, let us give him or her all of our support.  That is our responsibility as patriots who love our amazing country and want it to remain “the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

Not unlike the unprecedented number of candidates in the 2016 race for the presidency, each of us must also work hard to protect America, by doing our best to elect the right person to lead us for the next four or eight years.

Our children and grandchildren are depending upon us to preserve for them what generations before have given us: freedom, security from our enemies, a sound economy, and laws based on the values and principles of our forefathers.  Above all, please do not just vote and feel you have “done your civic duty”.  It has never been more important or essential that we all vote wisely, if we are to bring our nation back to a comfortable, solid place that would rate approval from George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and many other brave, bright, honest presidents who contributed to America’s prosperity.

Part 2 will deal with “sustainability in education” and what will be the outcome is allowed to continue for the future of our nation.


[Originally published at Illinois Review]

On January 16, I attended a luncheon event at The Heartland Institute featuring author C. Douglas Love and his book, Logic: The Truth About Blacks and the Republican Party, And Why They Need To Work Together To Improve The Party, The Black Community, And the Country. [Watch the video below.] The subject piqued my curiosity in a big way.

The invitation about C. Douglas Love spoke of him as “an amateur polymath and avid reader with a keen interest in politics.” Describing himself as a conservative, Love said he strives to be a champion of the truth. He believes that both political parties do the country a disservice in their rhetoric.

Raised in Gary, Indiana, Love now lives in Chicago with his wife where he runsa political site and an organization — Think or Die — whose purpose is to galvanize conservatives and educate people on the conservative principles and the dangers of an overreaching government.

Given Love’s credentials and the intriguing and promising title of his book, I was all ears about what Mr. Love had to say as a black Republican and author. For it seems logical to believe that blacks, even though voting Democrat 95% to 5% in the last election cycle, might be receptive to the Republican message if Republicans knew how to reach blacks and didn’t tend to write off the black community.

This led me to consider the following question: Why then are Republican pundits and those in House leadership positions currently convinced that a larger slice of the Hispanic vote is essential to winning elections, and that working with the Senate to pass immigration reform (amnesty) will produce the means to win future elections? It seems evident that Republicans have no inkling that amnesty is not popular outside the beltway. In the hinterland of America, securing the border before all else is top priority. Granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants is illogical, to say the least, and is not popular with the base of the Republican Party, given the millions of Americans unable to find jobs or who are underemployed

History does tell us that blacks and Republicans once had a strong relationship. From the creation of the Republican Party in 1856 to the election of Franklin Roosevelt, blacks voted exclusively for Republicans — for it was Lincoln as the first president to be elected under the Republican mantel who freed the slaves. As Love explains, while black allegiance started to shift during Roosevelt’s presidency with his “New Deal” programs, it was with the election of President Lyndon Johnson and his anti-poverty legislation that blacks went from voting exclusively for Republicans to voting exclusively for Democrats.

Love noted how the biggest shift of black allegiance from Republican to Democrat possibly took place when Barry Goldwater came on the scene with his book “The Conscience of a Conservative” in 1960. Goldwater’s book rubbed black people the wrong way, Love said. With the Barry Goldwater/LBJ presidential match-up four years later in 1964, blacks eagerly embraced Johnson and later on his War on Poverty.

Mr. Love’s remarks zeroed in on what many blacks believe about the Republican Party and the correlation those beliefs have on the way they vote. Love also had advice for Republicans in reaching out to black Americans for their votes.

Writing the book was not a sudden epiphany for Mr. Love. Like many black conservatives, Love said he started out as a Democrat. His transformation toward conservatism evolved over time. Love said blacks vote heavily Democratic because that’s the way their parents or family voted in the past. It is also more than likely, he said, that nasty remarks about Republicans are passed around within the black community that tend to forever poison the well for Republican candidates.

In explaining the nature of his book, Love noted how Logic differed in two essential ways from those written by other authors who have written about blacks and the GOP:

1. Logic’s goal is to abandon the use of labels and instead listen to what all have to say before forming opinions. (Arriving at personal conclusions is why Mr. Love chose Logic as the title of his book.)

2. Logic doesn’t address many issues, as its object isn’t directed at explicitly creating black Republicans. The use of logic, however, should result in a self-discovery (an awakening) by blacks to show that their former misconceptions are faulty and that being a Republican makes sense.

Love said he recalls often the experience of listening to people talk about the “angry responses” between John McCain and Obama in the 2008 election. The same tone of anger was heard four years later in the retorts exchanged between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama in the 2012 match up, which prompted Love to ask: “Why can’t people just disagree instead of calling each other names?”

Since those disagreeing most with Obama were Republicans, Love said, it came to be accepted as truth in the black community that all Republicans “must be racists” because they didn’t endorse Obama for president. Even after six years as president, it is pathetic that Obama is still using racism to explain why support for him and his programs aren’t more popular.

According to Mr. Love, this perceived racism toward Republicans among blacks developed at the time Barack Obama became the first back candidate to vie for the presidency. With the entrance of Obama on the national scene, many blacks at last took an interest in politics, with this one drawback: Any knowledge they gained was based solely on Obama’s candidacy and his subsequent election.

Overnight, Love said, blacks became experts on Obama — never questioning Obama’s policies or actions because they lacked prior political experiences to draw upon in order to evaluate or compare stated policies. Romney’s policies in 2012 would have been better economically for blacks, but lacking any background on which to base their votes, blacks voted for Obama’s wrong policies which sounded better to them, but which didn’t work.

Using logic, Mr. Love explained how to dispel the common notion in the black community that blacks can’t possibly be racists — as power and control must be present for racism to occur. Love asked: Is it really possible or logical to conclude that only Republicans can be racist and that Democrats are blameless? Is racism perceived to be present when a white candidate is selected over a less qualified black candidate? Or what if a more qualified black candidate is selected over a white candidate?

Other black misconceptions about whites, according to Love:

1. All white people are rich Republicans, which refutes logic as the wealthiest people in Congress are Democrats. Consider also that movie stars are wealthy and most often vote Democrat.

2. All whites love war and Bush was a war monger, when about an equal number of wars were started under presidents of both parties.

3. All whites are right-wing zealots, which comes into play because many blacks are one-issue voters (same as in many other ethnic groups). If a Democrat legislator is in sync with the views of a voters on a key issue — be it for gay rights, abortion, or immigration — voters must support that legislator. Yet not all Republicans are anti-gay, pro-life or for amnesty.

And what about the stigma placed upon black conservatives by other black Americans? As blacks are expected to vote Democrat or they are “off the plantation,” black conservatives are accordingly racist. Not so says Mr. Love who didn’t grow up wealthy — but neither did Dr. Ben Carson who was targeted by the IRS in 2013 after daring to criticize Obama and his policies at the National Prayer Breakfast.

In the Q&A after his presentation, Love was asked: Will Republicans ever again be able to capture a goodly portion of the black vote? Love suggested that 30 percent of the black vote is about all Republicans could hope for in future elections. Even so, he asked, why do Republicans write off a good proportions of the voting population? While Democrats can count on Jews, women, and Hispanics for support, they continue to take the black vote for granted because of its huge ready made majority. Is this indifference by Democrats an opportunity for Republicans among black voters?

Love said that it is not enough for Republicans to just show up in black neighborhoods once every four years. They are seen as opportunists. Republicans need to court the black vote, Love said, because blacks live in mega cities like Atlanta, Chicago, and Los Angeles. This is where the votes are. Blacks need the Republican Party, because Republican polices are better for blacks in the long run.

But Love asked: How does one break the chain of dependency that blacks have come to expect from Democratic politicians? Logic comes to the rescue. Has the leadership in your black community serve you well? What about the promises that were made over the years? Have they been kept? Are you better off since President Obama became president?

A brief discussion of Adam Smith’s book, The Invisible Hand, brought to a close the Heartland event. An black attendee noted how the “personal self-interest” of many black voters always comes into play. The result of voting for this “self-interest,” he said, has helped create the worst pathologies we see now in many black communities: poverty, unemployment, and crime.

Politicians would do well to remember: Good intent has consequences which should be based on results, not on interests.

I highly recommend you read Mr. Love’s book, Logic.

[END NOTE: I had one point of contention with Love, which riled me as a conservative Republican. It occurred when Love spoke about not being a fan of name-calling — specifically the use of the term RINOS (Republicans in Name Only) by conservative Republican and Tea Party members. As stated by Mr. Love: “Democrats don’t call Democrats DINOS,” so why does the Tea Party ostracize “RINOs”? For conservatives like me and other Tea Party members, the good of the party does not rest with establishment Republicans in leadership positions. They are trying to silence conservatives and the Tea Party so they can continue to compromise with Democrats with an agenda that is Democrat-lite — bigger government and more massive spending.

— Nancy Thorner

Nancy Thorner writes for Illinois Review.

ThornerBy Nancy Thorner –

Conservative Republicans are often looked upon as irresponsible and right wing nuts until election time rolls around. We are then courted for our votes. In the aftermath we are expected to remain quite and obedient in the background, even though the principles we espouse and hold sacred within us (smaller government, less spending, adherence to social and moral values, liberty, and freedom of choice) are being disregarded and dismantled as our Constitution is likewise being torn and tattered.

Recently Republican House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio brought home how he views conservatives and conservative groups. Boehner roundly conservative criticized groups who had mobilized in opposition to the emerging bipartisan budget bill once news reports surfaced that it would undo sequestration spending levels in the near term. It was Boehner, however, who had broken his pledge made in 2010 by rushing the bill to the floor instead of making a bill available online 72 hours before a vote is held.

Groups roundly criticized by Speaker Boehner for mobilizing against the bi-partisan bill were Heritage Action and Americans for Prosperity. He went on to call these groups “ridiculous.” Both organizations should be heralded rather than vilified for their action.

The groundwork for Heritage Action was laid by Edwin J Feulner, president of the conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, for 35 years until former senator Jim DeMint was named successor in late 2012, taking over as president on April 3, 2013.

As the sister organization to The Heritage Foundation, Heritage Action’s troops ( engage in politics in the narrow sense by holding legislators accountable for their  votes, while the Heritage Foundation remains dedicated to politics in the larger sense, laying out the big idea and broad themes that must underlie our nation’s policies.

For too long, Washington has advanced a liberal agenda and served the needs of special interests. The nation desperately needs conservative voices, but in Washington even many self-described conservatives advance the ideas of the left.  A new conservative direction is needed. Heritage Action is working toward that goal.

What Boehner finds objectionable about the work of Heritage Action, as do many establishment Republicans in both the U.S. House and Senate, which extends also to their fellow conservative Republican House and Senate members, relates not only to the experienced Heritage Action legislative team that works the halls of Capitol Hill to tell lawmakers and their staffs how to vote to promote conservative principles, but also the activist army of grassroots organizers — now more than 300,000 strong — who get the conservative message to their local representatives and then hold them accountable for how they vote.  There is even a Conservative Scorecard that rates each lawmaker.

Heritage Action’s grassroots army is open to all who wish to join in the fight to take back this nation from those who advocate and are continuing to advance a Socialist agenda.  The task at hand involves engaging legislators in the politics issues of the day, but also trying to convince legislators that there are more compassionate ways of helping the poor; more enlightened ways of protecting the environment; more effective ways of educating our children; healing our sick; and tending to our elderly than to rely on the invisible foot of a distant bureaucracy.  Thorner has been a member of the Heritage Action grassroots army for two years.

Chip Borman is the Upper Midwest Regional Coordinator of Heritage Action which includes the state of Illinois.  If interested in becoming a member of Heritage Action’s grassroots army, contact Mr. Borman at

Worthy of sharing is the following essay by Chip Borman published on December 19:  Activist Versus Establishment:  Constant Accountability. It explains in no uncertain terms the real “inside/outside” fight that is now underway as conservatives fight those on the “inside.”

This is a fight for the heart and soul of the “right”.  We saw something like this in the 1960’s with the Rockefeller vs Goldwater wings that broke down by Liberal Republican versus Conservative Republican.   Pro-Choice, Anti-war, High Taxes, Big Government.  This is why Reagan said that we needed a “Choice, not an Echo.”

This fight is somewhat different…. I believe that this split in the “movement” is not totally left versus right. This is also between “Inside” and “outside”.   Those Republicans on the “inside” want to get re-elected at all costs and don’t mind spending China’s borrowed money, raising taxes and increasing government’s reach to do it.  The worst part is them telling activists to get out of the way until we are needed at the next election time.   Insiders want to be held accountable only at elections, when the choice is an either/or choice of Republican or Worse.  Inside Republicans know that they will win that choice.  Outside conservatives want to have a voice in their government – and not just at election time.

While the Constitution gives us (at several places) the right to vote, the First Amendment re-affirms our God-given right to “petition for redress of grievances”.  This doesn’t merely mean that we can circulate a petition; it means that we have an innate right to speak our opinions and directly tell our Representatives what we believe.  The right to Express an Opinion.  I can recall a time after the Tea Party victories in 2010 and the mood seemed to darken for the newly minted GOP leadership in the House.  Boehner’s people asked the Tea Party why they had “turned” on them.   The Tea Party response was “What, you thought we’d just go away after November?”

What we see here is Inside Republicans frustrated with the success of those that are demanding a smaller, limited government.  The success of the grass roots in stopping the Farm (food stamp) Bill and our success in bringing the truth of ObamaCare to light has made the insiders nervous.   I believe that if we didn’t express our opinions about the unfair, unworkable and un-American Health Insurance Scheme, most inside Republicans would have been happy to foist that on the American People so long as it didn’t interfere with their next election.   At election time, they counted on an easy re-election because they had taken 39 meaningless votes against an unpopular policy while the Democrat was 100% for it.  No matter the actual damage of the policy – they wanted the political win.

The accuse us of helping the Democrats, as if that’s our only choice: take what they give us or throw them out.  We can speak up, we can score the conservative position, we can tell them (politely) that this is not leading down a path of limited government, we can publish our opinions for all to see, we can be angry, we can be supportive, we can organize and we can write.  In short we can hold them accountable, and not just at election time.  Insiders hate that.   Sure, we always have the choice at election time to vote Dem or to stay home, but this means that they are essentially taking two rights away – the right to speak up and be heard; and the right to vote for a clear choice, not an echo.

Friday, December 27, 2013 at 11:28 AM | Permalink