DOWNSTATEILADVOCATE.COM

I Want A Brokered Convention

downstateiladvocate — 2012-02-05T20:41:01Z

When I was taking education classes, they preached on and on about conflict resolution and compromise. They told us how to de-escalate confrontation so that the conflict between groups or individuals doesn't blow up into a larger conflict.

In our jobs, we are trained to defuse situations either as a manager or when we deal with customers. Don't escalate the situation because you will only make things worse.

Finally, in politics, we are told we must compromise. We are told that we must go with whoever is the most "electable". We have to pick whoever "appeals to the independents". Hard line stances on policy issues are taboo and labeled as divisive or being closed-minded. We see it happen every election in Illinois. Pick the guy or gal that the Chicago liberals want.

What's the result of all this conflict resolution and compromise?

We are left with a society that stands for nothing - hence the high level of "independents". God forbid we take a side in an issue or a party for that matter! We have been brow beaten into believing that any conflict is bad whether it's in our personal lives or an international conflict.

We, as Americans, have become a nation that goes with the flow. Whatever works as long as it doesn't effect me. We don't ruffle feathers because somebody's sensibilities might get hurt. We worry about saying the wrong thing in case somebody might get offended. We would rather go with the status quo than upend the apple cart. Risk is frowned upon, safe choices praised.

As a result, we get outcome based education in our schools, games like Duck, Duck, Goose and Musical Chairs are banned because kids might feel left out, football/baseball/basketball games with no scores so "everyone wins", businessmen not donating or getting involved because they worry about backlash to their business, politically correct language, refusing to publicly take a stand because friends or neighbors might get offended, etc. It used to be said that you don't talk politics or religion in a bar. Now, that same adage applies in our daily lives as people are scared to talk politics or religion in open society.

What happens when you compromise time and time again? We (conservatives and a nation) move just a bit more to the left. You see, it's not hard for the left to compromise because they basically get what they want knowing that the next time, they will get closer to their eventual goals. Conservatives on the other hand, cannot go back the next time because we already gave up ground to the left. There lies the problem.

If a teacher gives up a bit of control in the classroom to placate students, that teacher will never get that control back. Likewise, conservatives give up a little more each time, and we never get it back - ie center-right Supreme Court judges, moderate candidates, Romneycare, etc.

What does this have to do with a brokered convention? Everything.

Conservatives are being told right now that Mitt Romney is the most electable. Conservatives are being told that a conservative candidate cannot win against Barack Obama. Conservatives are being told that if the others in the GOP race don't get out, then we are hurting Mitt's chances and are only helping President Obama's re-election chances. Even in DC, a GOP led US House compromised with the President to raise the debt ceiling in exchange for the Keystone XL pipeline - and we all know how that has worked out. But we are supposed to keep compromising?

If everything was hunky-dory within the GOP and "independents" (God, I hate that term), then there would have been no Tea Party. If everything was fine in the GOP, then there would be less conservative candidates at this point of the game vying for the GOP nomination. If there was no problem within the GOP, then Tea Party candidates would not have beat GOP incumbents in primaries in 2010. If there wasn't a problem with the progressives, then those same GOP conservative candidates should have lost their elections.

For the longest time, conservatives have been told by the Beltway Boys, the Left Coast, and in Illinois the Collar County Crew that conservatives can't win. On the flip side, when their guy loses and the Democrat wins, it's also the conservatives' fault because we refused to compromise and support the moderate/liberal GOP candidate 100%. Time and time again, conservatives are treated like the step-child of the GOP. Even friends of conservatives who have made their money and reputations from expounding conservative ideas - like Ann Coulter - have drank the Mitt Romney kool-aid.

So I want to have that fight on the floor of the GOP convention in Tampa. I want a knock-down, drag out, cage match, last man standing war for the heart and soul of the Republican party. The establishment doesn't want that fight because of how it might look to the American public. The MSM media will go heads over heels in delight when it happens, but who cares about them?! A brokered convention isn't about them anyway. It's about the future of the GOP and the future of our country.

When we had a Presidential candidate in 2008 who was a squishy "walk across the aisle" type guy and the GOP now wants a candidate that is nothing more than Obama-Lite, what are conservatives to do other than pray for a brokered convention?

If the convention is brokered, the GOP could pick a candidate who is more conservative and someone that either wasn't on the ballot or someone who was on the ballot who dropped out. Remember, depending on the poll, roughly 70% of the GOP voters prefer someone other than Romney. That is why a brokered convention scares the GOP establishment. A brokered convention scares them more than what the MSM would say about it; it scares them more than what the independents would say about it. To lose control of the convention, the nominee, and ultimately the GOP itself scares the establishment GOP more than anything in this world. This nomination was supposed to be a cake walk for Mitt, and instead has turned into a gauntlet.

I want a brokered convention. Let's have the fight. Let's take the GOP back from the liberals and squishy moderates once and for all. Isn't that one of the goals of the Tea Parties anyway - to fight off progressivism and to reclaim the one party that - on paper - shares Tea Party ideals? Here's to a brokered convention.

Something Important About The Illinois Primary

downstateiladvocate — 2012-01-14T02:16:21Z

On March 20th, Illinois voters will head to the polls to vote in the Presidential Primary. In addition, many of us will cast votes in local primary races ranging from county board to coroner. However, one of the most important votes cast isn't for any of those races; it's for Precinct Committeeman.

One of the general criticisms of the Tea Parties is that they are very disconnected from each other and have generally failed to rally around a particular candidate or have split their support among a field of candidates. Hence the rise of Mitt Romney as the front runner and the others in the field splitting the other 75% of support.

Another criticism of the Tea Parties is their unwillingness to be absorbed into the Republican party or any party for that matter. They are staunchly conservative, but independent. This point has been both their benefit and their defeat. Staying independent has allowed the Tea Parties to largely operate outside of the normal political world while affecting elections to their liking in 2010. At the same time, the Tea Parties have failed to affect the Republican party leadership despite being instrumental in the takeover of the US House and other races.

There is a growing number of conservatives and Tea Partiers though that have recognized this problem of not affecting the Republican Party leadership at both the local and state level. As a result, these people have collected signatures on petitions within their respective voting precincts in order to be placed on the ballot on March 20th for a two year term as a Precinct Committeeman. An overwhelming majority - if not all - of those conservatives/Tea Partier Precinct Committeeman candidates you will find on the Republican ballot.

These people understand that in order to effectively affect change within the Republican Party, you must become a voting member within that party. Once a voting member of the Republican Party, these same conservatives/Tea Partiers can then help affect change at the leadership level.

Of course change won't happen overnight, but getting involved as a Precinct Committeeman is one of the important things you can do within the political world and voting for a Precinct Committeeman is one of the most important things you can do this upcoming Illinois Primary.

Unfortunately, the deadline for petitions to be on the March 20th ballot as a Precinct Committeeman has passed. But there is still hope for you! 28 days fter the Primary, your county Republican Party will meet for their County Convention to elect the new party leadership and only elected Precinct Committeemen can vote during this convention. After the County Convention, you can still step forward and ask to be appointed to any precinct that does not have a Precinct Committeeman elected to it. In this way, you can still affect the party through other ways since during the next 2 years, all Precinct Committeemen - both elected and appointed - can vote on party business at the county level. As a result, even though you missed the deadline to file, you still have an opportunity to make changes at the county level.

When March 20th comes around and you are in polling place casting a vote, make sure to check to see if there is a Precinct Committeeman running in your precinct. If there is someone running, then make sure you vote for him or her. If there isn't, then contact your county's Republican Chairman or another Precinct Committeeman (list available at your county clerk's office) to get involved.

If you are a Tea Partier, you must get involved in party politics, especially if you want the movement to survive longer than previous political movements before it. The machine that is party politics will leave the Tea Parties in the dust if the Tea Parties do not join in and attempt to take over the party machine. This Illinois Primary is your first chance to do just that. The next opportunity won't happen until 2014 - and pray it won't be too late by then. If the Tea Partiers don't get involved now, then they risk being nothing more than a blip on the map of political history like Soccer Moms, Reagan Democrats, etc.

To quote one of my favorite movies, "get busy livin' or get busy dyin'.".

The Scam of Higher (Lower) Education

downstateiladvocate — 2012-01-12T02:00:12Z

I may be stating the obvious, but 4 year universities and colleges are nothing more than scams designed to bleed the taxpayer of money and trick students into the idea they "need" to take and pass certain classes!

Mind you, I'm not taking issue so much with what is learned (though I have serious reservations about cherry picking information or skewing that knowledge taught from a liberal point of view). The courses you decide to take to achieve a degree within a chosen major are needed and the intro-major courses provide a scaffolding system for the student as the student advances through his or her major courses into more intense and narrower scoped classes within their major.

The scam of higher education begins with the "prerequisite" courses a student must take before that student can pursue their chosen major. For instance, the "general education" requirements at Eastern Illinois University include:

Humanities and Fine Arts	9 hours
Language	9 hours
Mathematics	3 hours
Scientific Awareness	7 hours
Social and Behavioral Sciences	9 hours
Senior Seminar	3 hours
TOTAL	40 hours

Of course the power that be that decided the "general education" requirements justify it as creating a well rounded, worldly minded student. Bunk. It's all about the money.

According to the EIU Financial Aid site it would costs a student, who lives on campus, $22,736.00 to attend one year at EIU @ 15 hours with a 12 meal plan in the dorms. If you live off campus, it will cost a student $14,194.00 per year (actually higher if you are a commuting student) less the costs of 12 meal plan/campus housing. For our purposes, let's just use the student living off campus as an example. The costs to a student just to get through 40 hours of "general education" @ $269.00 + fees per credit hour = $17,705.00 +/-.

One question I have is why are we being double taxed or triple taxed to pay for "general education" that should have been learned while a student was in high school? How are we double or triple taxed? Look at your property taxes - you pay a portion to your local school district and then you pay a portion to EIU and Lakeland. Then you are taxed on your state income which helps pay for higher education. Then your income is taxed at the federal level which some of it filters back to the universities or colleges. In addition, once enrolled at a university there are also activity fees, parking fees, book rental (at EIU students rent books instead of buying them), health services fee, etc. More money, more problems.

It's not my fault or your fault that a student is not prepared for college. It should not be our responsibility to reteach students what they need in order to do well in their major courses. It lessens the value of a college degree when students are taught, retaught, and then pursue their career chosen college classes. If a student can't write a paper when they get to college, they either need to learn how on their own real quick or maybe, **gasp**, they shouldn't be there in the first place? It's not our fault that a student's high school did not educate them correctly or the student didn't pay attention in class. If anyone can basically get a degree because they have been coddled and tutored the first 2 years of school (at considerable costs to the student and taxpayer) so they can make it in their chosen major classes, then what's the value of a Bachelor's degree? The value sure doesn't go up, but the cost of college always does.

I'm not that old, but I do remember a time when a college degree was something special. Your degree gave you an advantage over someone that didn't have a degree, and double that sentiment if you had a Master's degree. What happens to the value of a product or service when scarcity is no longer an issue? The value of that product or service goes down. Likewise, that principle transfers to a college degree but yet the costs associated with obtaining a less-valuable degree has gone up considerably. This is also a problem I have with "online universities", but that's a post for another day...

Furthermore, universities crank out degrees like Bill Maher cranks out stupid. If a certain major is a dying field or the job market is saturated, then universities should either limit how many they allow to major in that field or shut down the program altogether. But again, it's all about the money. Just because a student wants to major in something, doesn't mean the university should provide them the avenue to pursue such folly. As an example from a fantastic movie starring Jeremy Piven, Jon Favreau and David Spade called PCU:

Tom: What's he doin?
Droz: He's finishing his senior thesis. Pigman is trying to prove the Caine-Hackman theory. No matter what time it is, 24 hours a day, you can find a Michael Caine or Gene Hackman movie playing on TV.
Tom: That's his thesis?
Droz: Yes! That's the beauty of college these days, Tommy! You can major in Game Boy if you know how to bullshit.

Some might argue that it's a free country and if my kid wants to get a worthless degree in underwater basket weaving, then that's his or her right. I guess you can study, or do anything you want, but that doesn't mean the tax payers have to pay for it or provide a vehicle for your kid to be eventually unemployed (thereby costing tax payers more money).

It is beyond belief that it takes 4 or more years to get a degree because it should take only 2 at the most 3 to achieve a degree. When a student attends a university, the student should be placed directly in their chosen major courses. If they make it, great! If they sink, perhaps a university isn't for them - there is junior college though.

Junior colleges offer a 2 year degree where students do take general education courses and either graduate with an associates degree or then continue on to a 4 year university. Why are universities offering the same courses as junior colleges? Better yet, if universities and junior colleges are going offer the same courses, WHY DON'T ALL COURSES TRANSFER?!?!

That's right. Let's say you attend Lakeland, don't get an associates degree but decide after 2 years at Lakeland you want to go directly to EIU. Some of your courses will not transfer, and you will be forced to retake the same courses at EIU. Furthermore, if I attend EIU and decide after 3 years that I want to finish up my degree at SIUC or any other 4 year university, guess what....not all of your classes will transfer, if any do at all. Once arriving at your new university, you will have to retake courses you already took at EIU. So the scam for more money continues.

To continue, if I take courses at EIU but I can't fit one class or another into my schedule but Lakeland teaches the classes and is actually a class that transfers, one would think I could dual enroll, transfer my credit from Lakeland up to EIU to speed up the process towards graduation. Wrong. I used to be able to dual enroll, but universities have gotten wise and now if they find you have dual enrolled, the credit taken at the other institution will not transfer regardless if it would have transferred if you were only enrolled at the junior college. Money.

But it gets better! In order to graduate from EIU, a student has to take a senior seminar - that'll basically cost an extra $1000. If you transfer to EIU, a student has to reach "institutional residency" which means a student has to take a minimum of 30 hours at EIU to graduate.

Every step of the way, the student and the tax payer gets bled just a little more.

By allowing QUALIFIED students to attend universities and achieve their degree in less time also ensures they will have less student loan debt (not getting into that argument here) when they graduate. If a student has less debt, then they have more money to spend. If the graduate has more money to spend, then the economy benefits. And so on and so on.

As a result, we are left with archaic institutions of learning that are more concerned with ensuring our students are classically ~~indoctrinated~~ educated liberals, retaught in the finest education that our tax dollars can buy and pass out degrees like ice cream. It's redistribution of wealth - education style - and our universities are failing miserably. I can tell you horror stories of senior level students I had classes with that either could not write a coherent sentence or could not arrange the English language into a coherent sentence while speaking.

Our politicians are so concerned about reforming public education at the high school level they have completely ignored universities. I'm sure the heavily unionization of universities has nothing to do with the lack of reform in any way shape or form...

Our university system must be reformed. Dropping "general education" requirements and allowing transfer of credits from institution to institution without penalty would be a great places to start.

The Battle For The Republican Party

downstateiladvocate — 2012-01-07T01:42:19Z

Much has been made online and within the MSM about the conservative vs liberal (and moderate) wings/candidates of the Republican party during this Presidential GOP primary election.

On one side - the liberal or Massachusetts Moderate - we have Mitt Romney. On the other side, we have the rest trying to pit themselves as the poster child for conservatism (and the word "conservative" seems to be open to debate and interpretation this year as well).

I think this GOP primary is shaping up to be something more though, something that the Democratic Party had to go through in 2008 - Old Guard vs New Guard or better yet Old Establishment vs New Establishment.

Let me define "establishment" in these terms for our purposes here as those that are in a position of power within the party structure.

This thought first came to me awhile ago, but I was reminded about it and made more of a connection when John McCain endorsed Mitt Romney. This endorsement was really no surprise and in fact, I wrote a piece detailing that Mittens was actually McCain Version 2012.

McCain's endorsement coupled with the endorsement of former President George HW Bush and the less than tacit snubbing of TX Gov. Rick Perry there is a power struggle within the GOP (carried out almost daily on Fox News anytime Karl Rove opens his mouth). In effect, it's the Bush wing vs. all challengers to the Bush legacy.

We saw the same thing playing out in 2008 and since - the Clintons vs all challengers to the Clinton legacy.

As former Presidents, both Clinton and the Bushes, had the opportunity to place their supporters and loyalists in positions within their respective parties. Both the Clintons and the Bushes continued to shape their parties until someone came along to knock them off the proverbial hill. In the Clintons' case, it was Barack Obama's hostile takeover of the Democratic Party and when President Obama leaves office, his loyalists will control the Democratic Party until someone unseats the Obamaites' chosen successor(s). Right now, Obamaites have already fanned out across the country to lay the ground work to stay in power within the Democratic Party. Mayor Tiny Dancer in Chicago is a prime example of this, much like how Clintonites Bill Richardson ran for governor, Hilary ran for Senate, etc.

Likewise, we see this same situation taking place during the GOP primary. The Bushes, with their preferred candidate John McCain of 2008, have tried to crown their successor through Mitt Romney. Mittens will of course promote his people into positions of power, but those people will be aligned with the Bush wing.

Hence, we see one of the roots of the conservative vs moderate/liberal problem within the GOP just like we saw the battle between the center-left vs far left in the 2008 Democratic primary. The non-Mitt candidates represent varying different variations of conservatism different than George W Bush "conservatism". We have Reagan Republicans, Libertarian Republicans, and Clinton Era Republicans vs Bush Republicans.

I know I am working in grand generalizations here, but it's a working thesis. I would ask you to pay attention to who the pundits and commentators are talking up or down. Right now, it seems Mittens is largely getting pass from the conservative intelligentsia while these same critics are pointing out how Candidate X or Candidate Y doesn't have the money, doesn't appeal enough to independents, didn't make the correct speech, etc.

We are left with a power struggle for the GOP that could ultimately result in Obama's re-election.

Why Are We Tolerating Carpetbagging?

downstateiladvocate — 2011-12-30T13:00:00Z

It's a redistricting year which means all precincts, County Board districts, State Representative, State Senator, and US House districts are all redrawn to reflect the findings from the decennial census.

Sometimes, as a result of redistricting, a sitting US House member or sitting State Senator or Representative might find themselves on the other side of the fence a district they represent once the district lines have been redrawn.

As a result, this predicament places those redistricted incumbents into a precarious situation - retire or run in a sometimes partially or fully brand new district.

There's a word for those that decide to move to a district from a different district, in an attempt to make it easier to get elected or re-elected - carpetbagging. Generally, outside of a redistricting year, the voting populace usually has no stomach for people moving into a district last minute to run for office or for someone living outside of a district to run in a district where a candidate does not reside.

Since it is a redistricting year, the rules change a little bit for state offices**. Simply put (or not), anyone can run in any district as long as they move into the district they are wanting to represent by the time they run for re-election the next election after a redistricting year. So, if you win a IL House seat in 2012, you must move in district by 2014 or if you win a IL Senate you would have to move in district in 2014 or 2016, depending on which straw you draw since IL Senate terms are broken up into 2 year-4 year-4 year terms (or 4-4-2 or 4-2-4).

The quandary we find ourselves as constituents of the newly drawn IL 54th Senate District is that our sitting Republican State Senator Kyle McCarter is finding himself challenged by a fellow Republican, State Senator and Deputy Minority Leader John O Jones. Prior to 2012, McCarter basically represented the western portion of Effingham County and Jones represented the southern portion of the county (State Sen. Dale Righter - whom we are losing as a result of the redistricting currently represents the north/northeastern part of Effingham County).

My contention is why do we tolerate carpetbagging during redistricting years? It's not our fault that an elected official was drawn out of his or her district by political dealings or other means. In the case of McCarter versus Jones though, we are left scratching or head even more as to why this race is tolerated by the constituents of the IL 54th Senate district.

You see, John O Jones was not drawn out of a district, but rather his district radically changed. Instead of stretching basically from southern Effingham County south through Jefferson County (Mt. Vernon) where Sen. Jones lives, his new district would have stretched from Jefferson County west towards the Mississippi River, then south from there.

Instead, and in my opinion, to punish Sen. McCarter for not playing nicely with IL GOP leadership in the Senate - you know, they kind of frown on independent conservative thinkers in Springfield - Sen. Jones decided to run in a district that he DOES NOT LIVE IN - like the IL 54th Senate district.

If Jones were to win the primary and then the general election AND if Jones were to draw the long straw, he could live in Mt. Vernon and not have to move into district for 3 years...if he decided to run for re-election that is. If for instance, he draws the long straw for a 4 year term and decides not to run for re-election, we would have a State Senator that would not live in district for 4 years. What incentive would Jones have to represent the 54th district if he doesn't live there? We are supposed to trust that he would represent the 54th district as virulently as he has his current district? I'm a trusting soul, but not that trusting. I believe we need someone that lives in district to represent us in Springfield.

Why do we tolerate this? Sen Jones could easily run in the district that encompasses where he lives but instead, decided to run against Sen. McCarter. Carpetbagging is the highest form of a politician being a self-centered. The fact that he or she would have the gall to think they are so important to a district that a district and its constituents just cannot live without them is appalling to me.

We would not tolerate carpetbagging any other election year, why now? What's different? In short, absolutely nothing and we should treat such behavior in the same way - DON'T VOTE FOR CARPETBAGGERS OR SEN. JONES!

** (US House rules don't change during redistricting since according to the US Constitution, one must only reside in the state where the district located or in other words, it is within the realm of possibility to have a US Representative live in the state but outside a district he or she represents in Washington DC.)

Newt Is Like Newt, Nobody Else

downstateiladvocate — 2011-12-24T16:50:40Z

Recently, Steven F. Hayward at National Review wrote a piece comparing and contrasting Newt Gingrich to Winston Churchill on two different points - personal faults kept/keeping both men from higher office and whether or not both men had/has learned from history. Although Hayward's piece is an interesting read, it is based on false historical analytical assumptions.

As a student of history, we are taught that we should not practice "presentism" or the practice of imposing history on today's events. We hear such presentism every day on the news whether it's a school shooting being described as a "Columbine type" shooting or a disaster being compared to Katrina. We also hear it from politicians or pundits comparing today to some event in the past like "the worst economy since the 1970s". We do it ourselves as well. Presentism is used to help connect today's events to a shared history or a shared time period or person in history and to help explain what is taking place today, but can lead the reader or viewer to a false interpretation of correlation-causation relationship.

We have to first understand that each event in history is unique time, place, and set of circumstances, so to compare one event to another is a misnomer. Likewise, to compare one person in history to another is fun, but is also based in the same historical untruths.

Knowing what we know now about the basic tenet of historical analysis, let's deconstruct Hayward's piece comparing one of the greatest statesmen in modern history - Winston Churchill - with Newt Gingrich.

First, Winston Churchill's faults as Hayward points out and believes - "his resolute stubbornness, his unconstrained and unpredictable imagination and occasional recklessness" kept Churchill from high office and also contributed to Churchill being distrusted by his own Conservative Party. Yes, Churchill was a stubborn man, but what got Churchill in trouble was his insistence that England take a hard stance against an emerging Adolf Hitler in Germany - which stemmed from Churchill's own military service and time as Minister of Defense - while the government and people still had fresh memories of leaving an entire generation in Flanders' Mud. Churchill also made a political miscalculation by picking the wrong side during Edward VII's abdication of the throne. In addition, Churchill did not always tote the party line, even as he became that party's leader. Churchill had friends, but he had just as many enemies.

Comparing Gingrich's economic "radical change" and past leadership to Churchill's defense of the economic status quo (he would lose reelection to Prime Minister to a Clement Atlee of the Labour Party who ran on a platform of socialist programs that plunged England into a democratic-socialist government until Margaret Thatcher's rollback of those programs) and Churchill's wartime leadership is incorrect. I would hope that if Newt Gingrich is the GOP nominee, that he too would not fall victim a head of government who has instituted several democratic-socialist programs.

Second, did Churchill or Gingrich learn from history? In a nutshell, no. Have both men used their experiences as a tool to leadership? Yes. Churchill used his experience as a military veteran and his experience in the government during World War I to sound an unheard alarm regarding events unfolding on the European mainland and to lead England during World War II. Gingrich, on the other hand, has used his experience as Speaker of the House to find compromises and hammer out a plan of action, including working with the opposition to enact his agenda and believes he can bring that experience to the White House.

Historical comparison is a dangerous game to play - like President Obama ranking himself as the fourth most accomplished President in just two years, ranking himself behind LBJ, FDR, and Lincoln. Arrogance to the point of megalomania to say the least. LBJ dealt with a country seriously divided along racial lines and divided over Vietnam. FDR dealt with an economic crisis not seen since the Crash of 1920. Lincoln dealt with a country literally and figuratively divided. Obama has accomplished nothing except dividing a nation whereas it can be argued that LBJ, FDR and especially Lincoln, did what they could to unite or reunite a nation.

Comparing Winston Churchill and Newt Gingrich to each other is like comparing apples and oranges while the circumstances of those apples and oranges are miles apart. Presentism is a road we, Steven Hayward, and especially President Obama should rarely travel down.

Link Card Fraud In Illinois

downstateiladvocate — 2011-12-03T04:16:46Z

Over the last few years, our good friends over at Republicanreporter.com have highlighted the abuses of a system set up to help those that actually need it. Unfortunately, there are those in Illinois that think the Link Card program is their own playground to use and abuse at will - at the taxpayers' expense.

The Republican Reporter has once again landed an exclusive pinpointing yet another fraudulent use of the Link card system here in Illinois. I strongly encourage you to read the article, then take some antacid and some high blood pressure medication.

Link Card Fraud Exclusive via RepublicanReporter.com

Romney Plays It Safe With Newt

downstateiladvocate — 2011-12-03T01:57:13Z

It's no secret that Newt Gingrich is a huge fan of Lincoln-Douglas style debates. Newt loves a good debate and quite frankly can destroy anyone he would go up against. So when a Lincoln-Douglas debate was proposed between Romney and Gingrich, Romney declined.

Romney's refusal may come off as running scared against Gingrich or "playing out the clock", but in reality, it's a smart move.

I remember working for the Patrick Hughes campaign for US Senate. Along with others in the race, now Senator Mark Kirk refused to debate any of the GOP US Senate candidate. Debates were held, but Mark Kirk was a no show. At the time, I raged about Kirk refusing to leave his ivory tower to debate my candidate - or any other of the candidates for that matter. On the practical side, if you are the front runner, why debate? You have nothing to prove, only something to lose.

As with Mark Kirk, Mitt Romney is in the same position. Newt is on top of the polls right now, but over the last 2 months, we have seen no less than 3 different candidates rise to the top only to fall as quickly as they rose. Meanwhile, Romney remains solid with his 20-24% polling. Gingrich is now on top, but for how long? Why would Romney expose his campaign to Gingrich?

Don't get me wrong. I am a full time member of the "anyone but Mitt" movement and I would love to see Newt debate Mitt. To see Newt call into question Romney's backtracking, flip-flopping, less than conservative ways would be well worth the price of admission. I'm just saying Romney refusing to debate Newt is smart politics given the fluid nature of the GOP leaders.

Such is politics. It's not always what we want or want to see happen but you have to see it for what it is - a contest to outlast your opponent.

Is Sarah Palin Still Relevant?

downstateiladvocate — 2011-12-03T01:20:22Z

Sarah Palin jumped onto the scene in late 2008 as the VP nominee. She was a straight talking, brash, take no prisoners type of politican. Palin was targeted relentlessly by the left in an effort to destroy her politically, and possibly even personally - which continued even after the 2008 election.

She continued to influence the GOP via the 2010 midterm elections by raising money for her PAC and being one of the voices of the Tea Party. Of course she caught flak for "targets" on certain districts on her website - especially after the Gabby Giffords shooting. Needless to say, Palin is no stranger to controversy, contrived or otherwise.

But now we sit in 2011. In the course of less than a year, we have seen the Tea Party influence begin to wane, though they are still a force to be reckoned with politically. We also have a GOP primary to concern ourselves with as well. However, the question I want to examine is whether or not Sarah Palin is still relevant to the 2011 election cycle. Will she hurt or help the eventual GOP nominee? What role will she eventually play in 2012?

Palin has spent the last 2 years attempting to establish herself as the conservative kingmaker in GOP politics. In the year leading up to the 2010 elections, at the height of the Tea Party, many candidates for office on the federal level running as conservatives seemed to covet the opportunity to kiss Palin's ring to gain her endorsement.

That was then, this is now. One year is a lifetime in politics. Now, Palin is nearly a nightly event on either Greta or Hannity. She's on TV as much as Karl Rove these days, but like Karl Rove, she has yet to say anything different or groundbreaking other than to add commentary on different GOP candidates or rightfully criticize President Obama. I have to apologize, but when I listen to Sarah or Karl I don't feel like I know more afterwards than before they started opining.

Palin still has a very vocal and strong following among certain corners of the GOP (whom I am sure I'll here from because of this post). I'm not trying to be insulting here towards Palin, but she comes off to me as this generation's version of Ron Paul - only sane. Their followers are similar - passionate, devoted, and willing to defend until the bitter end. Nothing wrong with that per se, loyalty in politics is a rare thing.

Which brings me to relevance. Is Palin's endorsement really all that important going into 2012? Do the GOP candidates have to kiss her ring this time around? I'm not convinced. I believe that Palin has lost some of her punch as a kingmaker or being able to influence the GOP at large. Her unfavorables are fairly high based on the last time I could find polling about her - 32% favorable, 62% unfavorable.

Perhaps Palin's relevance hit a peak this past summer when she led the media around the country as she stopped at different US historical sites. Each speech she gave was half-way covered by the media just in case the announcement to run for President came - but it never did - leaving the MSM to scratch their head wondering what just happened. Her supporters wept and gnashed their teeth and did everything in their power to draft Palin or convince her to reconsider - to no avail.

Has the ship sailed on Palin? She declined to run for President instead deciding to stay on the sidelines to help defeat President Obama. Others have done the same from Mitch Daniels to Chris Christie, but both Daniels and Christie are not perceived must-have endorsements. As time ticks closer to the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire primary, I believe her relevance in 2012 diminishes without her endorsing anyone. After Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada,and Florida, will her endorsing anyone really matter anyway? The GOP field should be whittled down by a few candidates by that point anyway. Besides, isn't that the point of endorsements? To gain enough support to push the other candidates out of the race or create a perception of inevitability of one candidate over another?

What if Palin does endorse - given her high unfavorable rating - does she hurt or help the GOP candidate she endorses? If a candidate - at this time Newt Gingrich - can rise within the polls, maintain the lead, and win at least one of the early primaries, does Palin's endorsement matter, again, leading to whether she is relevant. At the same time, a Palin endorsement could hurt the perceived frontrunner as the MSM would have the ammo to run stories about how the "radical" Palin has endorsed a fellow "radical" so on and so on .

On the other hand, maybe Palin is smarter than the average bear. Palin protected her relevance/influence when didn't endorse Bachmann as Bachmann rose and fell in the polls. Palin didn't endorse Perry as he rose and self-destructed. Palin didn't endorse Cain as he rose fast and fell just as hard. Palin also hasn't endorsed the other candidates - Paul, Santorum, Huntsman, Romney or Gingrich.

Today, as I write this, a Palin endorsement in my opinion is about a 50/50 help/hurt chance. One just never knows how such an endorsement will be perceived by voters - which will be the real test of Palin's relevance and ultimately, her continued influence within the GOP. We know how such an endorsement will be handled by the MSM and the left attack machine (is there really a difference?).

To sum up, I feel Palin has lost some of her influence among the GOP voters. I believe her relevance in the GOP primary race lessens each day as the political world goes on without her blessing one candidate or another. Finally, in a real threat to Palin's relevance, influence, and another test on her base supporters, what if Palin came out and endorsed Romney? Whatever happens, at this point in the ball game a "none of the above" answer is unacceptable.

Illinois Straw Poll Results In Continued Failure

downstateiladvocate — 2011-11-06T18:34:06Z

This past week, the Illinois GOP has been running their online straw poll to determine who the Illinois Republican voters like in the GOP primary for President. Yesterday, November 5th, the Illinois GOP also had multiple locations in Illinois where people could walk in and vote in the straw poll as well. To cast a ballot, a voter only had to provide a minimum $5 donation. The results after 3,649 votes cast?

1. Ron Paul wins the online straw poll

2. Mitt Romney wins the walk-in straw poll.

3. The Illinois GOP loses again.

I have long detailed the failures of the Illinois GOP but the straw poll just seems to keep that losing streak alive.

Regarding the online poll, are we surprised that Ron Paul would win? I'm not. The Paulites have a long tradition of stuffing the ballot box and here we have yet another example. Seriously Illinois GOP? An online straw poll? Did they expect different results? The straw poll couldn't have been solely about raising money since the buy-in to the straw poll was set so low so I guess we should chalk it up to incompetence.

Regarding the walk-in straw poll, to my knowledge most of the polling stations were in northern Illinois which accounts for Romney getting the most votes at 35% but Cain, despite the ongoing Politico crap shoot, came in with 29% of the vote.

So why is this straw poll a failure for the Illinois GOP? Outside the Ron Paul ballot stuffing, it was a failure because the Illinois GOP continues to list like a sinking ship as it slowly takes on water before its inevitable demise.

The Illinois GOP continues to put their stock in "activism" through phone calls via Illinois Victory and doing PR stunts like straw polling. It's great, grand and wonderful that Illinois Victory "identified" the most voters than any other state that ran similar programs or that more people voted in the the Illinois GOP straw poll than other large electoral college voting states that conducted their own straw polls. But what did it accomplish other than a news headline and possibly a bragging point for not one, but two candidates? Isn't one of the goals of a straw poll to find one winner?

On November 28th in Illinois, the filing period for petitions to be Precinct Committeman. Has the Illinois GOP tried to recruit people? No. I have not heard a single word from IL GOP Chair Pat Brady - publicly - about Precinct Committeemen. Nothing. In fact, when I met with Pat Brady at the Illinois State Fair GOP Day, he stated to the group of Tea Party leaders present that he believed that the PC doing GOTV is going to the wayside because of online outlets such as Twitter and Facebook.

Nothing beats boots on the ground. Nothing. You can Twitter and Facebook all day long and it either gets lost in the noise or your message doesn't reach a large enough audience. This "strategy" also relies on everyone you are trying to contact being a member of some sort of online community.

But everyone does physically live in a real world community and therefore they can be reached by the PC knocking on their door to inform them about a candidate and/or to remind them to vote. The Illinois GOP doesn't seem to want or care about informing voters or GOTV, just identifying them. The Illinois GOP strategy of voter ID can be summed up like this:

That's their idea of getting people to vote. Furthermore it's apparent that the Illinois GOP leadership thinks that we will turn into Chris Farley when PCs do GOTV...

I have three stories of successful GOTV campaigns. The candidate didn't always win, but if this effort was multiplied across Illinois and within other states we could make a serious difference.

1. Bill Brady (R) vs Pat Quinn (D) Illinois Governor race 2010. Bill Brady lost by just shy of 20,000 votes. In my county, my girlfriend and just a handful of others walked door to door in each precinct for Brady and to GOTV. The result? Our county had a 58% turnout in an off year election with Brady winning by the second largest percentage than any county in the entire state.

2. Judge Doug Jarman. Running for Circuit Judge against a candidate who was related to and shared the same last name as the long serving retiring incumbent which equaled strong name ID. Jarman did not have as strong name ID as his opponent. We used Illinois Victory to try GOTV via phone calls but most callers would not give us a hard answer as to which judge candidate they preferred (a serious flaw within the Illinois Victory strategy) and actually seemed a bit insulted we were asking (a huge flaw in the Illinois Victory strategy). So we went door to door distributing literature and reminding people to vote. We walked our city's Halloween parade and we were able to distribute over 3500 pieces of literature for Judge Jarman. The results? Judge Jarman won his 9 county election with our county returning a considerable higher percentage of votes for him than any of the 9 counties in his circuit.

3. My city council election. I had some name ID because of our Tea Party efforts in town, but I was not running and did not run as the "Tea Party candidate". I ran solely on the issues. Our city council is an at-large bid so GOTV was important to success. My girlfriend (also doubling as my beautiful campaign manager) led the GOTV effort for my election as I was tight for time because I was doing my student teaching at the same time as running for office. We sat down and identified which precincts had turned out the largest number of voters the last city council elections and we targeted those precincts with our door to door campaign. The result? I won and I saw first hand the election result difference between the precincts we walked versus the precincts we didn't. GOTV was singlehandedly the deciding factor in my victory.

Why the Illinois GOP continues to waste time with PR stunts as straw polling instead of recruiting PCs so that we have our ground game in place is beyond me. Perhaps the Illinois GOP is stuck in a loser mentality and needs a shake-up at the top. Or perhaps we should make sure we are on the ballot to be Precinct Committeemen so we can snatch victory from the grasp of defeat because of the Illinois GOP leadership.

If you live in Illinois, November 28th - December 5th is the filing period for Precinct Committeemen. If you live out of Illinois, get on the ballot to be a Precinct Committeeman!

Northbound and Down

downstateiladvocate — 2011-10-21T04:30:07Z

One of my favorite movies is Smokey and the Bandit. In that movie, Jerry Reed played Snowman, a trucker who the Bandit played by Burt Reynolds ran as blocker while they bootlegged a load of Coors to Georgia from Texas. Reed also wrote a song called Eastbound and Down that was featured in Smokey and the Bandit about what else? Truck driving.

The trucking industry is near to my heart. My grandfather was a OTR trucker with Smith Transportation in Louisville, KY and then ran local for a company in Effingham, IL. He started driving truck shortly after exiting the Army after WWII and drove truck until about 1995/6 before he finally retired. I also know many, many truck drivers because of work and I have had plenty of conversations with them about issues facing the trucking industry and as truck drivers.

Drivers seem to be under attack at every turn whether it's DOT regulations or at weigh stations. I just recently talked with a driver that got hit up crossing the California border who was forced to pay $75 for a piece of tubing (along with every other truck in line) during a check, and when he asked for a receipt he was told that would cost him another $75. Other drivers have been fined thousands of dollars for loads that were just slightly overweight - despite having nothing to do with loading the trailer.

Since the economy took a hit, drivers have seen their expenses go up but independent drivers are seeing loads pay less today than a few years ago doing the same run. The repairs alone on a big rig will set you back thousands of dollars, which in itself could be considered highway robbery.

Now, drivers have to contend with Mexican truck drivers being allowed to enter deep in the US because of that wonderful treaty (sarcasm) NAFTA. I understand the benefits of free trade, but I believe free trade only works with countries with similar economies and pay scale. Free trade with countries like Mexico only hurt the US worker.

Unfortunately, the US does not really have a choice in the matter of letting Mexican drivers into the US because treaties have the force of law and Mexico has threatened to take us to the World Trade Organization because the US is violating the agreement. If this issue were to go the WTO, we would most likely lose the case and the WTO would force the US to comply or risk facing fines and sanctions against US products with WTO participating countries.

Of course the unions want to make this issue about them as Hoffa Jr has been been trying get this provision of NAFTA stopped at the 11th hour. Hoffa Jr has seen his numbers of members dwindle to about 12% of the trucking and warehouse industry in 2009. The trucking unions have already been taking a hit, especially with the revamping of the auto industry. Union members have had to take concessions to keep their jobs while others have seen their companies go bankrupt completely. However, the Mexican trucker entering the US has more to do with the non-union company driver and the independent than the union drivers.

Right now, the better paid company drivers get between 32 and 40 cents a mile based on experience, company and record. The union drivers that I know get about $1.00 a mile, plus benefits including 100% paid health insurance - and that is down from 5 years ago. The independent driver can earn more or less than the company driver depending on the distance of the load and who their broker is, but having to do their own repairs and pay for gas and lodging. I talked with a driver not too long ago that told me his load paid $1200 but by the time he was done with gas and lodging he was expecting to get $400. Yet another driver told me that after a load he recently took, he would actually be losing money.

Mexican drivers coming into the US will depress the earnings of US drivers as they will be running for much less than what the US driver gets paid. What is stopping shipping companies in the US from contracting with Mexican drivers would will make the runs for much less than a US driver? Nothing. As a result, we may see almost 100,000 drivers lose their jobs as a result of Mexican truckers entering the US.

Because of NAFTA, the US drivers will be forced to do one of two things - find a different line of work or work for less to compete for loads.

In addition, we have to take into consideration the safety of the Mexican driver, the condition of their equipment, and their willingness to follow federal rules regarding the trucking industry (ie mandatory restarts).

I have a further problem of letting foreign nationals en masse into the US. What is to say that we won't see an epidemic of Mexican drivers abandon their loads once they get into the US knowing full well our federal government no has a policy of not deporting illegal aliens? I know it's speculative, but US policy makers have to take this into consideration.

Furthermore, what recourse do US citizens have against Mexican trucking companies if a qualified or unqualified Mexican company driver causes an accident, injury or death on the US highways? There is no incentive or guarantee that a Mexican trucking company would pay damages if held liable in a US court.

While union drivers see themselves under assault, it really is the other 88% of non-union workers within the trucking and warehouse industry that are under assault with this provision of NAFTA.

In a few days, we will have Mexican truck drivers traveling our US highway system within the deep parts of our nation.

Let's check back in a year or so and see how enforcing NAFTA fully has affected the trucking industry. Until then, I guess it's northbound and down instead of eastbound and down.

Raising Cain

downstateiladvocate — 2011-10-14T23:35:28Z

Herman Cain has seen his candidacy ascend to the top or near the top of many national polls. Cain is a candidate that is outside the Beltway and is quintessentially the "outsider" as everyone else has held public office either as Governor or in Congress.

With Cain's rise in the polls, so comes the attacks - both personal and on policy.

Al Sharpton and MSNBC especially have been relentless in trying to paint Herman Cain as a sell-out, "house negro", and other terms that I just don't feel comfortable writing here, but MSNBC has no problem airing. But that's a post for another day.

The attacks on Cain are also centered at his 9-9-9 plan. Are there problems with the 9-9-9 plan? Yes, but to me, Cain is the only one so far that has had the guts to stand up on a stage and challenge the current tax system. Even if 9-9-9 will never be implemented, we could have a President in Cain that is at least willing to revise a broken system instead of playing the budget shell game that Washington DC plays now. Cain is also a skilled mathematician which helps when doing budgets and dealing with our complicated tax system.

Cain also speaks plainly and doesn't use the Beltway coached Romneyspeak. To me, it's Cain's race to lose, despite the media and Conventional Wisdom saying it's Romney's to lose.

Bachmann has never been able to gain traction from Iowa and her comments stating that the HPV vaccination causes mental retardation and stating that Cain's 9-9-9 plan was actually 6-6-6, she's done but doesn't know it yet or doesn't get it.

Santorum is running on social issues - and that about sums up his candidacy right there.

Huntsman is a guy running against Obama but yet Huntsman found it perfectly acceptable to work for Obama as Ambassador to China. Huntsman is left of Romney. Actually, I think Hunstman would be running for President as a Democrat if Obama wasn't in office now.

Gary Johnson. If you're asking yourself "who?", then you are like the rest of the GOP primary voters.

Ron Paul. As Cain said on Jay Leno, "grumpy old man".

Gingrich is also seeing a bit of rise in the polls. I think this comes from his debate skills, but whether or not the general voter can get past his past, is another question. Newt, in my humble opinion, is the smartest guy in the room.

Perry. Did you hear that giant sucking sound? That sound is Perry's much anticipated (by myself included) campaign going down the toilet. Bad debater and proves that just because they like you in your state, does not mean other people are going to like you. See Gary Johnson.

Romney. Rino, period. Flip-flopper.

Last night at the 3rd Annual Effingham County Republican Fall Festival, I was able to sign Herman Cain's petition to be on the ballot in Illinois. If you get a chance to, I would highly recommend signing his petition as well.

Until then, check out Herman Cain for yourself.

#Occupywallstreet: The Unwashed Left

downstateiladvocate — 2011-10-08T03:59:19Z

In the news lately are the wannabe hippies protesting banks and corporations down at Wall Street in New York. Some of the protests have spread to other cities, although it seems though that other than the protesters are angry at the banks and corporations they have no idea about what to do once they get to the protest. Other protests in other cities seem to have leaders, but the organizers don't seem to have a plan once everyone shows up. Of course, where there is a protest against corporate "greed", you can bet SEIU and the other unions will be there as well (see previous link).

What is on display in New York is not a grassroots effort to change the business climate or the way that businesses conduct business, but what is on display is the left's values - redistribution of wealth, and refusing to work for what you want.

With the Occupy Wall Street protesters, we get to see the left's ties to socialism which is and always has been the basis for the progressive movement since it found its ways to our shores towards the turn of the last century.

In New York at least, the organizers stated what they want with their 13 demands.

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending “Freetrade” by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

Ah yes, the classic free trade argument, just like how the United Nations is supposed to be teach all those cocoa farmers to grow coffee? Because that's worked out so well. Free trade only works between countries of comparable economies, ie Canada and the US, not between countries of differing economies, ie US and Mexico.

Twenty dollars an hour minimum wage. What the amateur redistributionist economists at Occupy Wall Street don't understand is that when minimum wage is raised, two things happen 1) inflationary pressure drives up prices, so shortly that $20 an hour won't buy what it did when it was first raised, and 2) companies are not going to raise their current wages in proportion to the rise in the minimum wage. I know this last one first hand. I remember working at RR Donnelley and Sons in Mattoon when the minimum wage went up. I was earning $10.50 an hour and a minimum wage increase had just passed. I asked my supervisor if we would see an increase in our pay to reflect the change; he stated no. As a result, I lost about $1.o0 worth of buying power I had over those working lesser paying jobs because of the increase.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

Obamacare, I get it. Don't get too attached to it whiners because thanks to Harry Reid if the GOP takes the Senate, keeps the House, and takes the Presidency, the GOP only has to change the rules of the Senate and we can repeal Obamacare outright with a simple majority vote. Precedent, the double edged sword.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Living wage. What is considered a living wage? Ricardo's Iron Law of Wages does not apply in the United States. Are there jobs that are underpaid? Sure, but that's only because somebody is willing to do the job. If there wasn't somebody to fill the position, then either the businessman must do it himself or must increase his wages in order to attract somebody to fill the needed position. That's the dirty secret is wages operate on the principle of supply and demand.

Regardless of employment? There is a difference between jobs, and there should be a difference between pay. I have a hard time believing somebody flipping burgers would get paid enough to make a mortgage payment, car payment and send kids through school. I guess it could be done, but I hope you like paying $25 for a Whopper or $70 for that double mocha latte.

Demand four: Free college education.

A good college education which some of the protesters could seriously need - besides, they'd fit right in with the leftist political science and economic departments. Free though? College is not a human right. But this starts getting down to the gritty details of the protestors. They want what others have, and they want it for free - or at least make somebody else pay for it other than them. They want to redistribute wealth and while they are at it, they want to redistribute education. The protesters could get a free education, but that would mean having to join one of their most hated institutions - the Armed Forces. It's called the GI Bill.

Despite what Dave Ramsey says, college loans are a fact of life in my humble opinion. I have them, many of my friends have them, and it's very hard to pay for college outright. That's not to say it can't be done, but it's very difficult to raise $10,000 or more either per year or semester depending on which college or university you might attend. I wonder if the protesters are also pushing for equal opportunity to the top colleges. I wonder how the liberals at Harvard or Yale would like that demand? Can you imagine the sons and daughters of the liberal elite hobnobbing with the common folk? Might be interesting to see...

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

The evil oil corporations. Or is it the environment? Like it or not, without fossil fuels, we might as well go back to the days before the Industrial Revolution while other countries like China continue to grow. By the way, if Bush was in bed with Halliburton and the left consistently makes mention of that (even 3 years after Bush left office), why no outcry by the same idiots regarding Obama and Solyndra? Third World status, here we come!

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

Is Maxine Waters writing this list for the Occupy Wall Streeters? This demand sounds eerily familiar to something she said just recently. Somehow I don't see the protesters taking jobs pouring concrete or driving steel on a railroad - that would cut into their free time camping out on the streets of New York or their bed in their mother's basement. Besides, we just finished spending nearly a trillion dollars with Stimulus 1 and 2, and we still have a 9.1% unemployment rate. Does our infrastructure need to be updated? Yes, but infrastructure improvements are not the solution to America's unemployment problem. Of course, this is where the unions like the protesters because most of those infrastructure jobs would be union jobs.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America’s nuclear power plants.

The Johnny Appleseed plan. There is nothing wrong with being good stewards of the environment, but I suppose we should do away with hydrological energy (gasp! non-fossil fuel energy) by demolishing the Hoover Dam and the rest of the dams across the country to restore the "natural flow of river systems". Of course that means we have to demolish the lock system on the Mississippi as well. Nuclear power decommissioning. Guess the protesters don't like charging their iPhones. I could live with the nuclear power going away as long as we convert nuclear to and build Thorium plants. But until then, Montgomery Burns, fire them reactors up.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Racial equal rights amendment? It's called the 14th amendment. There's also this thing called the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This demand is like screaming Free Mandela! when he's already been freed. Gender equal rights. The ERA amendment has been dead for over 20 years. At the heart of this demand is gay rights. If a transgender transexual hermaphrodite eskimo wants to do what he/she wants, that's fine, but I'm not cool with him/her marrying himself/herself.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

I've warned my readers about the United Nations International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families before, I'll let you read up on it because there's just too much to explain here at this time. By the way, ask Europe how that open borders thing works for them...it doesn't. This demand also harkens to that whole concept that citizenship is wrong and unfair and that we are all just people on the same planet. Barf.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

Dear protesters, we already have observers, their called poll watchers. Anybody can be a poll watcher if you are a Precinct Committeeman attached to a major party or if you are appointed as a poll watcher by a campaign. We don't need the international community prying their eyes into our election process; it works and works damn good. One last thing. Each major party can appoint one person in each county to sit up at the County Clerk's office to watch the ballots being counted (at least in Illinois that's the way it works). It's usually done under watch of law enforcement as well.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books.” World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the “Books.” And I don’t mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

Here's the Latin American socialist ideas at work. Debt forgiveness. God forbid you pay back what you owe. Do you go to a restaurant, eat dinner and then not pay? Of course not.

The only thing missing in these demands is land redistribution Latin America style! Here's an idea for the protesters: if you don't have the money, then don't buy stuff you can't afford. Don't buy a house just because you want a house despite a crappy interest rate. Don't rack up credit card debt. "Gimme stuff for free" seems to be the mantra of this bunch of unwashed liberals.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

This would do nothing more than penalize those that actually pay their bills on time and watch their spending. Now they want redistribution of credit.

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

At the core of the socialist movement is the union. Read The Jungle. The first part of the book is the part we all learn in school about worker safety, food regulations, etc. The second part of the book, we rarely learn in school - it's the part where Upton Sinclair's book devolves into a socialist pamphlet.

I have many union friends and they love being in a union, but they hate the union itself from Hoffa Jr. on down. I was talking with one of my union friends Sunday evening. He just got a letter from his union stating that he can no longer expect 100% pension at 62 and that he must now wait until 65 to collect 100%. He was pissed. He was asking why he should wait because 100% at 65 is not what his union promised him. He was now cursing the very organization that "gave him his great job". Remember one thing. Unions had their place, but unions are only in it for the upper leadership, they could care less about the rank and file member - just as long as they pay their dues.

These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy.

I guess the protesters had to toss in a hat tip to the pro-amnesty crowd.

After reading the demands, they really are nothing more than a redistributionist policy that the Democrats in Congress are afraid to state openly (other than Bernie Sanders) because they know it's political suicide.

The protesters are steeped in populist politics as well. Power to the people, right? Reset society and let's start again?

In the end, the Occupy Wall Street protesters are nothing more than a stinky (at this point) band of unemployed people demanding more from their government. We have raised an entire generation of people dependent on someone else rather than depending on themselves. This is the goal of the progressive movement - you are not responsible for anything, Big Brother will take care of you.

I'm a student of history. What is taking place is similar to what took place in Paris 1968. I hate Wikipedia, but the site does have a good explanation of the 1968 Paris riots.

The May 1968 protest refers to a particular period in French history. It was historically significant for being the first wildcat strike ever,^[1] and for being the largest general strike ever, bringing the economy of an advanced industrial country to a virtual standstill.^[1] It commenced with a series of student occupation protests. The strike involved eleven million workers for a continuous two weeks,^[1] and its impact was such that it almost caused the collapse of President Charles de Gaulle's government. In staging wildcat strikes, the movement contrasted with the trade unions and the French Communist Party (Parti Communiste Français, PCF), which began to side with the de Gaulle government.^[1] Groups revolted against modern consumer and technical society and embraced left-wing positions that were critical of authoritarianism and Western capitalism.

The first part of the explanation is precisely the goal of the Occupy Wall Street crowd. Notice the section I bolded at the end. Sound familiar? The protests in New York are not going to bring down the Obama administration - he's done that on his own, but the other parts similar except for the numbers of people and the violence.

As I said from the beginning, the Occupy Wall Street protesters are showing the socialist side of the progressive policies of the Democratic Party. It's on display on the streets of New York in its unwashed and unsanitary glory. The protesters are attempting to repeat a moment in history, but it's more like a repeat of a historical moment using flawed logic like from some Monty Python movie.

#iamthe53

3rd Annual Effingham County Republican Fall Festival

downstateiladvocate — 2011-10-07T22:30:13Z

The 3rd Annual Effingham County Republican Party Fall Festival
Witt's Smokehouse
Oct. 13th
Social/music 5:00 - 6:30pm
Dinner program 6:30- 7:00pm
Social/music 7:00 - ???

Featured speakers: State Sen. Kyle McCarter, State Rep. Paul Evans, State Rep John Cavaletto , and State Sen. John O Jones

Headline speaker: William Federer, author of Change to Chains and national known speaker who will be discussing the rise of sharia law within America.

Tickets are $20 a person, $10 per student.
Please RSVP ASAP by emailing anakrion76@hotmail.com or by calling Brian at 217-821-9306

All monies raised will stay local to help our candidates!

Enter Romney: McCain Version 2012

downstateiladvocate — 2011-09-24T00:15:40Z

Originally posted on 6/5/11. Updated 9/23/11 to reflect the Fox-Google debate.

Last night, Rick Perry attempted (rather poorly) to highlight Mitt Romney's flip-flopping ways. We had a flip-flopper running for President in 2004 . His name is John Kerry, who represents Massachusetts in the US Senate. We don't need a GOP flip-flopper on the ballot in 2012. Might be something in the water in Massachusetts that makes people change their minds depending on whether it's an election year or not. I tweeted last night that Mitt Romney is running as a conservative, as a former moderate, as a former liberal. Keep that in mind when you see him schmoozing for the cameras at the next debate.

Do not forget that Romney is the party's choice. He seems to be quickly becoming the media's choice as well. As reflected below, we went down that road in 2008 with John McCain.

For those of you that didn't learn your lesson in 2008, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is nothing more than a repackaged John McCain. The moderate (and would be liberal) wing of the party loves Romney. The GOP leadership loves Romney. The mainstream media loves Romney. See a pattern? It's the same junk we went through with John McCain.

So what's the problem with Romney? He just announced his candidacy, and you're already going after him? My answer is damn right! We have to nip this Romney candidacy in the bud before we are left with John McCain Version 2012.

Here's the problem with Romney. He stands for nothing. He flip-flopped on a number of issues in 2008 to appear more conservative than he actually is. Numbered points are from the Washington Post in February 2008:

1. Abortion. In October 2002, campaigning for governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney said he would "preserve and protect" a woman's right to choose. He now describes himself as an abortion opponent.

The right to life of the unborn is sacred. Massachusetts is a lefty state to begin with, so I understand his position then, but it begs the question: was he lying to the people of Massachusetts when he said these things or is he lying to us now. Personally, I don't want to find out should he actually win the GOP nomination.

2. Gay rights. In a 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans, who advocate gay rights, he said he was in favor of "gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly" in the military. He now says it would be a mistake to interfere with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

This issue has been somewhat settled now that gays can openly serve in the military. However, I wonder if he would be very supporting of DOMA if he won the presidency.

3. Gun control. Campaigning for the Senate in 1994, he said he favored strong gun laws and did not "line up with the NRA." He joined the National Rifle Association in 2006 while pondering a presidential run, and he praised the group for "doing good things" and "supporting the right to bear arms."

There are some of us that don't line up with the NRA either, especially when the NRA was tossing around the idea of endorsing Harry Reid last election. So does Romney support strong gun laws or does is he pandering to the base of the party again?

4. Campaign finance. In 1994, he advocated a spending limit on congressional elections and the abolition of political action committees. In 2002, he supported public financing of campaigns from a 10 percent tax on private fundraising. This year, he said the McCain-Feingold law limiting campaign contributions is an attack on free speech.

I support the decision in Citizen United, but it's funny how you can see Romney's opinion on the situation going into 2008. Things change when you need bunches of money to run for President. Again, I'm not faulting the Supreme Court's decision, I'm faulting Romney for once again leading GOP voters around by the nose.

5. Immigration. In a November 2005 interview with the Boston Globe, he described an immigration overhaul advanced by John McCain as "reasonable." He now denounces it as an "amnesty plan." In December 2006, he signed an agreement authorizing state troopers to round up illegal immigrants.

Pandering again. Finger in the wind. Nuff said here.

With Romney, it gets a bit worse. Mitt Romney has come out in favor of continuing ethanol subsidies. Ethanol was nice at one time, but has not lived up to its promises. I'm no tree-hugger, but the amount of water needed to make just one gallon of ethanol is enormous. We yell at Obama for subsidizing the car industry, but yet many say nothing (to get elected) about subsidizing ethanol? And other industries?

Last, but not least, is Romneycare - Massachusetts' version of Obamacare before Obamacare was even around. How can Mitt Romney bash Obamacare and the massive costs it will have on the taxpayers in 2 years and the intrusion of government into our lives when he did the same thing only on a small scale? It is the ultimate Romney flip-flop!

Once again, beware the candidate - Mitt Romney - that is supported by the GOP leadership, mainstream media, and the left. All these people supported John McCain in 2008. What's one more flip-flop for a McCain Version 2012? Romney likes to talk about what is in his book or Perry's book, but the only book Romney should be reading is a history book. Especially the chapter on his past candidacies/past platforms.

Effingham Tea Party Regular Meeting

downstateiladvocate — 2011-09-13T21:35:10Z

On Thursday, Sept. 15th at 6pm, we will be having our first monthly regular continuing education meeting at the Raintree Restaurant (next to the Best Western, in front of the Petro) in Effingham.

One of our speakers for the evening will be State Sen. Kyle McCarter, a conservative with an independent mind and voting record. Please attend and show your support for him as he is challenged by the IL GOP establishment candidate - State Sen. John O Jones - in the primary. Ladies and gentlemen, we always talk of the conservative vs. "the establishment" and we now have a prime example of that fight in our own backyard.

We will also be discussing the new districts, precinct committeemen, running for office, important election dates, and other need to know items.

In addition, we will be review the 9-12 principles.

Finally, we will open the floor to general discussion. This is your opportunity to discuss whatever you feel you want to discuss. Is there a bill in front of DC or Springfield you feel people should know about? Do you just want a chance to speak out on an issue that has been burning at you for awhile? This is your chance!

We hope to see you there and bring a friend!

Where Were You?

downstateiladvocate — 2011-09-11T13:25:55Z

Today marks the 10th anniversary since the 9/11 terror attacks that cost the lives of over 3000 Americans and foreign nationals. As the news media covers the various events, both good and bad, today, I ask you where were you when 9/11 happened? Here's where I was:

The morning of 9/11, I was working at RR Donnelleys in Mattoon piling American Bar Association Journals as they came off the line. It was shortly after 8am when some of our co-workers came off of break and said a plane had hit the World Trade Center. We kind of shrugged it off as a freak accident. Being a historian, I commented that such an accident was possible since a plane had hit the Empire State Building back in 1945. Then I went on break and watched as the second plane hit the WTC. I remember the sunk feeling in my stomach as I watched both towers as they burned. When word got around a little later that the towers had collapsed, that sunk feeling in my stomach became a sick feeling. We were still piling the ABA Journal and it just so happened that we were piling the magazines that were slated to go to the WTC in New York. Even this day, it sticks in my mind 9 years later that I was piling magazines that were supposed to be sent to a place that was no longer there to people that were no longer alive.

God Bless those that we lost that day. God bless those that did their best, and some that lost their lives, trying to rescue those in and around the WTC towers that day. God bless our troops that are fighting the wars that came as a result of 9/11. God bless the United States of America.

Sense Of False Security

downstateiladvocate — 2011-09-06T03:44:02Z

I've seen a couple articles recently about how this group or that group will "reconsider" support either financially or at the ballot box for the Democrats and President Obama. I have seen other reports on TV about how President Obama must recreate a historical moment in time to get re-elected as his base begins to fall away and key voting demographics - especially the African-American community where unemployment is at a 27 year high. Record debt, no jobs created, and we are possibly heading toward a double dip recession - if we aren't there already.

It seems President Obama is set to be a one term President as we see an increase in the media coverage of the problems that persist despite being promised "hope and change". We see poll numbers showing President Obama's approval rating at the lowest of his Presidency.

President Obama's election was historic in many ways some good, some bad. Even the media friendly outlets like Poltico have opinion pieces written about President Obama's troubled road to re-election:

But all this shifting around makes for less-than-coherent policy and messaging. Moreover, by accepting the whip-debt-now mantra of his GOP opponents, Obama may have fallen into the same trap that ensnared FDR in 1936, with few of the political advantages enjoyed by Roosevelt who was riding the greatest wave of popular progressive in the 20th century, which allowed him to overcome a 17 percent unemployment rate that year.

In the op-ed, the author explains that Obama is having trouble with his message. We all remember how Obama was going to "transcend politics" and how the media kept reassuring their readers or listeners that Obama was a moderate candidate, not the left wing nut job that conservatives and Republicans tried to portray Obama as during the election (or how the Tea Party has relentlessly reminded people after the election).

Actions speak louder than words. President Obama turned left real quick - as we knew would happen. He has used his Executive power more so than Andrew Jackson or even possibly Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. Obama is no moderate and for him to attempt to show so is a farce.

What troubles me right now is not President Obama's policies or his complete and utter abject failure as a President while destroying our nation in the same of "social justice", social engineering or economic puppeteering. What troubles me more right now is the absolute lull we have allowed ourselves to fall into.

Republicans took back one of the chambers of Congress in November slowing - not stoppinng - Obama's destructive ways. We see Obama's poll numbers. We see the economic numbers. We see the news reports go through the motions of criticizing President Obama. And what do we do? We say "Look at the numbers! Obama cannot possibly get elected". It also seems that many of us are saying "just give us the GOP nominee and let's get him out of office!". As a result, we are lead into a false sense of inevitability. We are lulled into passivity. A DANGEROUS PASSIVITY.

We, as Tea Partiers, are more than willing to go to rallies. Hold up our signs. Yell about America being destroyed. Rant about the socialist in the White House. Hear glorious speeches about conservatism and the American Way. We rage against those in DC and Springfield that defile the Constitution, tradition , and religion while protecting those that would aid them in our destruction.

But does that win elections? No.

I spoke about Tea Party 2.0 on April 15th, 2010. I said now is the time to put down our protest signs and pick up campaign signs, to walk precincts and begin the take back of our country at the ballot box later that year. Certainly not everyone, but some of you heeded that call. You showed up to man phone banks for candidates, walk precincts, volunteer in other ways, and finally vote.

But now we seem we have regressed. I sense there is a feeling that we have beaten back progressivism. We haven't, and in fact they are going to come after us with a fury. Just take Jimmy Hoffa Jr's words:

Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa had some profane, combative words for Republicans while warming up the crowd for President Obama in Detroit, Michigan on Monday.

"We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They've got a war, they got a war with us and there's only going to be one winner. It's going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We're going to win that war," Jimmy Hoffa said to a heavily union crowd.

"President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong," Hoffa added.

Posting articles on Facebook or tweeting anti-Obama messages does not win elections. Get involved and stay involved. Be a precinct committeeman. Educate yourself, your family, and your friends. Keep that fire in your belly because it's a long time until November 2012 and if we let our guard up, we will fail.

Effingham Tea Party T-Shirts For Sale!

downstateiladvocate — 2011-08-20T04:49:29Z

As you know, we are fast approaching a HUGE election not only on the national scene, but on the local scene as well. We have been busy supporting conservative candidates and educating voters. But it takes money.

As a result, we are selling Tea Party t-shirts in order to raise money to support our efforts. All t-shirts are $15 or 2 for $25. We have many different sizes including M, L, XL, and XXL.   If you would like to order a shirt, please print the form at the end of this post.



****Start of form****
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Please indicate quantity and size(s).

Qty. ____   2012 VoteR       Size 1: _____   Size 2: _____ Size 3: _____ Size 4: _____

Qty: ____ Anti-Socialist      Size 1: _____    Size 2: _____ Size 3: _____ Size 4: _____

Qty: ____ I'd rather be...      Size 1: _____    Size 2: _____   Size 3: _____ Size 4: _____

Please make checks payable to: Effingham County Tea Party

Please return this form and payment to:

Effingham County Tea Party
805 S. 5th St.
Effingham, IL 62401

Thank you!!!!
_____________________________________________________________________________________
**End of form***

Finally, stop by our booth at the Effingham County Fair!! T-shirts, buttons and other items will also be available at the booth as well as precinct and representative district information.

Is The Tea Party Over? Not By A Long Shot.

downstateiladvocate — 2011-08-06T21:11:56Z

I don't know why I am wasting my time even writing a retort to another lefty's claim that the Tea Party is over, but here we go....

In the August 7th Chicago Tribune, Clarence Page asks the question "Is the tea party over?'. Towards the end of his article, he quotes Edmond Burke - father of conservatism - to help try to prove his argument. I have to laugh at the left these days quoting Reagan and Burke. The left thinks quoting Reagan and Burke to conservatives is like using a crucifix to ward off vampires. If that's how the left wants to play it, we'll examine a few quotes of Burke to repudiate Mr. Page's arguments.

Disappointment

Page argues that the Tea Party and Obama share the same 40% disapproval rating. Then why is it that the Tea Party is over, but yet the left believes Obama will be re-elected? Same disapproval rating, but different results? Huh?

"Obama's, whose approvals slid to a new low of 40 percent in another recent poll, knows how it feels to disappoint the people who sent you to Washington. Now the tea party does too."

What would Burke say about Mr. Page's claims?

"Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises, for never intending to go beyond promise, it costs nothing."

Divisiveness

Page writes:

The tea party movement grew out of conservatives' frustration with a Washington they saw as taxing and spending too much — by both parties. Republican leadership, still shaken from 2006 election losses, welcomed the new energy that led to a comeback in the 2010 midterm elections. But fissures in the uneasy alliance between the teas and the party establishment showed themselves.

As House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio pushed to strike a deal to increase the nation's borrowing authority, some of the tea party faction argued whether the debt ceiling should be raised at all. The Founding Fathers would have quaked.

These issues undoubtedly will be put to the voters in next year's presidential races, reviving divisions between the Grand Old Party's conservative purists and the pragmatists who want a candidate who appeals to independent swing voters. Tea party freshmen faced a more conservative electorate in the 2010 midterms than the larger turnout that's expected in a presidential year. Yet they continue to push further right. Let the voters decide.

Page is somewhat right here. There is a divisiveness in the Republican party because of the Tea Party. The party establishment did love the rejuvenated base that sent a majority Republican House back to Washington in 2010. However, it was that same party establishment who thought that once they got their guys and gals elected could just go along their merry way without any regard to the reasons they were put there in the first place - fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free-market principles.

Instead, the party establishment began their same political games. Instead of the party establishment standing by Cut, Cap, and Balance and forcing the Democrats to come up with something resembling a plan, the party establishment played budget tricks to show "cuts" where none existed or those "cuts" were pushed off to the distant future for some other Congress and President to worry about.

Besides, Mr. Page argues against himself here. If the Tea Party is over, then what was Speaker Boehner and other Republicans so scared of? Why did Harry Reid, John Kerry, the MSM, et al. slamming the Tea Party as terrorists, etc.? How can a movement be so influential as to effect policy in Washington last weekend but yet "be over" the next weekend? Which is it liberals? Is the Tea Party a force to be reckoned with in politics or have they "peaked" as Mr. Page suggests? But then again, when was the last time liberals cared about double standards or contradictions?

What would Burke say about Mr. Page's argument?

"Tyrants seldom want pretexts."

Dangerous Disregard

Page writes:

Even fellow conservatives are beginning to speak out against the frightening radical ax tea party folks want to swing at government spending. "Don't call them conservatives," fumed conservative Hal Gordon, who wrote speeches for the Ronald Reagan White House and for Colin Powell, in a blog post. "Call them Banana Republicans if you like — or Republicans-Gone-Bananas."

We can play the "one conservative says" game all day long. Why is it so wrong to Mr. Page and Hal Gordon that we control spending? The debt deal did two things. First, it guaranteed our bond rating would get downgraded. Second and most importantly, the debt deal forced Republicans to concede that economic growth can only be achieved through government spending. Keynesians of the world celebrated. As a result, Congress raised the debt ceiling by the largest amount ever in US history.

The debt deal was dynamically opposed to the beliefs of the Tea Party - fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free-market principles. The absolute horror of it all! That government should live within its means! Oh the humanity!

In reality and much to the chagrin of the left, the disappointment comes from the Democrats refusing for nearly 3 years running to pass a budget, and the fact that we have no hope and no change in our pockets. The divisiveness comes from the Democrats refusal to admit their $787 million stimulus package and $6.3 trillion QE1 and QE2 were miserable failures resulting in a 9.1% jobless rate and a downgrade of our bond rating. The dangerous disregard comes from the Democrats' reckless spending via Obamacare, addition of another war, and an absolute commitment to higher taxes to fund their runaway spending and government programs. Meanwhile, we are bankrupting our children, and putting not only our economy in jeopardy, but also the entire world economy at jeopardy. Did we not learn our lessons from 1925 until WWII?

I just find it humorous how last weekend the Tea Party was so powerful and was the reason there was gridlock over a debt deal, but this weekend, the Tea Party has peaked and over. Amazing how the liberal mind works.

What would Burke say about Mr. Page and the Left's assertions?

Circumstances give in reality to every political principle its distinguishing color and discriminating effect. The circumstances are what render every civil and political scheme beneficial or noxious to mankind.

We simply cannot afford to continue down the noxious path we have all been led down. We all were guilty of fiddling while Rome burned, but now that some of us have awaken from our stupor and are manning the water buckets, we are told that the Tea Party is the problem not the solution.

The Tea Party is not over; it has not peaked - the left (and some Republicans) only wishes it had as we head into another election cycle.