Illinoisans should be angry enough to drive a stake in the heart of the political establishment

By

-

July 7, 2016

Pat-Hughes-headshot-2014-WEB

An Honest Moment in Springfield

By Pat Hughes

Illinois Democrats have proven once again that serving you is not their first priority. They are more interested in working the system to serve themselves.

Before adjourning for the Independence Day holiday, with $8 billion in unpaid bills to the state’s social services providers and businesses, State Senator Kimberly Lightford (D-Chicago) stood on the floor of the Illinois Senate and declared, “We’re not vendors… we deserve to get paid.” We’re not them. We’re legislators.

Politicians are rarely so honest about their core beliefs. They typically let their actions do the talking. For example:

Last month Chicago homeowners saw a 13% increase on property tax bills, while buildingsrepresented by House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) and Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) got sweetheart property tax deals.
In May, as parents wondered about the future of their children’s schools, State Representatives Mike Smiddy (D-Port Byron) and Kate Cloonen (D-Kankakee) obliviously played Candy Crush on House Floor during debate over a critical education bill.
At the end of legislative session, Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie (D-Chicago) flippantly repeated a one word response to serious questions about spending proposals in a budget that would have required a 47% tax increase on families and businesses.

In this case, however, Lightford succinctly summed up the central principle of Illinois’ ruling class:Insiders count. People who play by the rules… don’t.

Still, we wonder how she could make such a grossly oblivious statement. The reason is partly that members of Illinois’ political class feel their influence, status, and privilege means they aren’t responsible for the real-world consequences of their own rhetoric. It is also that they have simply forgotten what life is like for Illinoisans, or never really knew it at all.

The reason elites, like Kimberly Lightford, give the impression that they have never had to make a choice between laying off employees and losing their business is because they are part of a rigged political system with no bottom-line sensitivity. That is why Illinois legislators receive the 5^th highest paychecks in the nation, while we have $8 billion in unpaid bills.

It is similarly difficult to imagine that Barbara Flynn Currie or House Speaker Mike Madigan have ever had to wait in an emergency room line with a sick child or care for a loved one with disabilities. Their legislative choices demonstrate over and over again that they are laser focused on preserving their own power. The sustainability of social services or strength and credibility of our Medicaid program are merely political talking points at election time. For that, we are ranked 47th out of the 50 states in providing services for people with developmental disabilities despite record high taxes.

And Kate Cloonen and Mike Smiddy certainly don’t give us the idea that they know what it is like for a parent to be subject to the ambiguity of a lottery in order to provide their child a decent education. Someone who has lived through that is highly unlikely to play a video game as their party bosses attempt to hold schools hostage in order to pass an out of balance budget and demand a bailout for underperforming Chicago Public Schools.

Illinois Democrats are well known for the sources and systems through which they engineer wealth, power, and influence. They make a tremendous show of embracing select and politically convenient values in order to exercise and perpetuate their privilege and power. And, as Kimberly Lightford demonstrated, they are outraged when anyone dares suggest – by word or by vote – that they are mediocrities.

Little wonder the underlying theme of the 2016 election has been anger and disgust directed toward the political establishment. Per the polls, an overwhelming majority of Illinoisans see their families’ future and the state’s outlook as extremely bleak. And they see the political leaders in Springfield as being megalomaniacal, avaricious, narcissistic or feckless.

As we head into general election season, the question is: are Illinoisans truly angry enough to finally drive a stake through the heart of the political establishment that has used and ignored them for decades, or is that merely something they tell the pollsters?

Kimberly Lightford just told you who they are. On November 8, tell them who you are.

Colorado may Double State Tax to provide Universal Health Care

By

Steve Balich

-

July 7, 2016

0

Single-payer hitting close to home

JUL 05, 2016 | BY PAUL WILSON

Amendment 69 would create a health care payment system that would partly finance health care for Colorado residents through a $25 billion increase in state taxes. Photo: Getty Images — Amendment 69 would create a health care payment system that would partly finance health care for **Colorado residents through a $25 billion increase in state taxes**. Photo: Getty Images

I’ve attended several recent industry conferences here in Colorado. And as you might expect if you’ve been following the news, one topic dominated the conversation:universal health care.
The November ballot in the Centennial state will include an initiated constitutional amendment known as Amendment 69, which, if passed, will create a health care payment system that would partly finance health care for Colorado residents through a $25 billion increase in state taxes.

According to the ColoradoCare website, the program would “cover all residents and cost less than the current system.” Some of the projected benefits listed on the site include ambulatory patient series, hospitalization, prescription drugs, mental health services, emergency and urgent care, and preventive and wellness services.

The site features a quote from Bernie Sanders, stating that Colorado “could lead the nation in moving toward a system to ensure better health care for more people at less cost. In the richest nation on earth, we should make health care a right for all citizens.”
Of course, not everyone views the amendment in such a positive light.
At the Colorado State Association of Health Underwriters Symposium last month in Denver, Colorado State Treasurer Walker Stapleton said the amendment’s goal is to make Colorado the “test tube for single-payer health across the United States,” and added that the only requirement to qualify for health care would be a driver’s license. “Imagine the number of people with chronic conditions who will be moving to Colorado as a result of this initiative.”
He also cited an estimated cost of $25 billion in year one alone, which “would effectively double Colorado’s budget.” He said business groups around the state keep telling him, “You’ve got to be kidding me, there’s no way this thing is going to pass.” His response? “Never underestimate the power of what people perceive to be free on the ballot.”
Surveys indicate opponents have reason to worry. Polling of Colorado voters showsstrong support for the Amendment, and a recent report from the Denver Business Journal noted that even when pollsters were presented with the opponents’ point of view, “approval still remained at 51 percent, as opposed to 43 percent disapproval.”
At the CIAB Leadership Forum in Colorado Springs, retired neurosurgeon and former 2016 Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson offered another criticism.
“Single payer would be awful,” he said, because it would “remove the element of competition. It would remove the excellence.” If the U.S. moved to such a system, he said, the forces that helped create centers of excellence like Johns Hopkins and Mass General would disappear. More importantly, he said, “it’s not the American way.”
Come November, we’ll see if Coloradans agree, via another staple of the American way: the polling booth. In the long run, their decision could have far-reaching implications.

ILLINOIS AMONG TOP 10 LOCATIONS FOR TAKING IN SYRIAN REFUGEES

By

Steve Balich

-

July 7, 2016

0

TUESDAY, JULY 05, 2016 Illinois Review

ILLINOIS AMONG TOP 10 LOCATIONS FOR TAKING IN SYRIAN REFUGEES

Recently, the Immigration Reform Law Institute filed a FOIA request about how Syrian refugees were settling among the states. The statistics showed Illinois had taken in 236, the fifth highest location among the top 10 most open-arm states.

A table provided by the Refugee Processing Center lists the number of Syrian refugees placed in Illinois from FY 2014 through April 20, 2016:

Michigan leads the nation in taking in the Syrians.

Top government national security experts, including the directors of the FBI and National Intelligence, have testified that effectively screening Syrian refugees is virtually impossible. ISIS has also said that they intend to infiltrate terrorists into the United States posing as refugees.

“None of these dire warnings have deterred the Obama administration, which has vowed to resettle at least 10,000 Syrians in the current fiscal year and has slashed the vetting process from the usual 18-24 months to just three,” the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR) commented.

Obviously Americans everywhere should be concerned about the administration’s reckless disregard for the warnings of its own top security officials and a terrorist network that has already demonstrated its determination and ability to strike the West.

But FAIR wanted to find out where in the U.S. Syrian refugees are being settled.

The Obama administration has been less than forthcoming with this information, so the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) filed a FOIA request on behalf of FAIR. They found that between FY 2014 and FY 2016 (through April 20), the top resettlement states for Syrian refugees were:

Michigan: 367
California: 364
Texas: 284
Pennsylvania: 263
Illinois: 236
Arizona: 215
Florida: 184
Ohio: 134
North Carolina: 125
New Jersey: 120

“While the numbers of refugees may not seem large, they are merely the tip of the iceberg. The administration is rapidly accelerating the pace during its final year in office,” FAIR said. “The vast majority of refugees do not pose a security threat, but it doesn’t take a lot of terrorists to inflict a lot of damage. It took only 19 people to slaughter some 3,000 innocent people on 9/11. In recent months, small cells (or even so-called lone wolves) have perpetrated deadly attacks in the U.S., Europe, Africa and the Middle East.”

More Turncoat Republicans Side With Radical Gun Control!

By

Steve Balich

-

July 6, 2016

0

Editors note: The Republicans told us they needed the senate to stop horrible unconstitutional detrimental Obama dictates and interpretation of laws. We got both houses yet nothing was done. Democrats only have the Whith House yet seem to get whatever they want. Think of the omnibus Bill shoved through by our new Speaker Paul Ryan. Lets be honest, the Republicans are spineless. They say never Trump so their establishment graff and perks can continue with Clinton, the most corrupt liar in modern politics who is responsible for numerous deaths and loss of classified information. Think about the Clinton Foundation getting millions from all over the world.

It’s official. The anti-gun, turncoat Republicans have announced they have enough votes to pass their gun control bill…

Even More Turncoat Republicans Side With Radical Gun Control!

Fellow Conservative,
Late last week, Mitch McConnell held a test-vote on gun control. Before being embarrassed with another floor vote, he wanted to gauge support before moving forward.
The Senate could have killed the anti-gun Collins Amendment for good, but that’s not what happened. 52 Senators voted in favor of the amendment. This isn’t entirely accurate because notable anti-gun Senators Diane Feinstein and Bernie Sanders did not cast votes.
So the next time this bill comes to a vote, it will only need SIX Republicans to swap sides to pass it.
The amendment’s author, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), has publicly declared that another 10 Republican Senators have told her that they intend to vote in favor of this gun control bill. That would give this amendment more than enough support to meet the 60-vote threshold for passage.
We’re not out of the woods yet. The Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations bill is still being voted on. It hasn’t passed yet.
As long as this stays remains on the agenda, then the Collins amendment remains the greatest threat to American gun owners and liberty lovers.
The horribly anti-gun Collins amendment is still alive and now has enough votes to pass! FaxBlast Congress and DEMAND they kill any and all unconstitutional gun control bills or amendments.
You already know the specifics. The Collins Amendment would give the FBI the power to block someone from purchasing or owning guns without even having to produce enough evidence to charge them with a crime.
Instead of forcing a prosecutor to prove a suspect to be “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” this amendment would allow the suspension of constitutional rights without even forcing investigators to meet a “probable cause” standard.
Gone are the days of “innocent until proven guilty.”
A majority of US Senators officially voted to make American gun owners guilty until proven innocent.
It is a gross abuse of our Constitutional rights. This bill would gut both the 2nd and 5^th Amendments.
Eight Republican Senators voted to give the government the power to arbitrarily suspend your Constitutional rights. You can see how each Senator voted here.
They came up just a couple votes short. We have lived to see another day.
But that other day is today!
The Senate is moving through the bills on its agenda to pass as many pieces of legislation as possible before going home to celebrate the 4^th of July holiday.
If we’re going to save the Bill of Rights, we need to do it now!
Don’t let Congress sneak this horrible gun control amendment through! Send your FaxBlast and FORCE Congress to kill the Collins Amendment and any other attempt to destroy the Bill of Rights!
Sincerely,
Joe Otto
Conservative Daily

The Militarization of America

By

Steve Balich

-

July 6, 2016

0

By Adam Andrzejewski, CEO of OpenTheBooks 7/6/2016

7782e8f9-06f0-42ed-97f5-ad16b3db321c-original

Today, the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, held hearings on the security of the gun and ammunition lockers at Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Prison System (FPS), and Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
Congressman Mark Meadows (R-NC) grills the administrators on their weaponry and coding mistakes:

1.7 billion bullets procured by DHS
Women’s hygiene products mis-coded as body armor at FPS
Cable TV described as ‘Cable Dude’ and coded by DHS as guns
4,700 bayonets flowing to DHS from military surplus – why?
And more… watch the hearing, click here.

Today, Adam Andrzejewski, CEO of OpenTheBooks, is published in the Washington Times with an editorial, “Firepower for the Feds?”
Illustration on federal agencies weapons purchases by Alexander Hunter/The Washington Times

Illustration on federal agencies weapons purchases by Alexander Hunter/The Washington Times

Here’s a quick summary of Andrzejewski’s important column:
* Our honorary chairman, former Sen. Tom Coburn, issued a clarion call for an assault weapons ban at the federal administrative agencies.

* Who is the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) preparing to battle after procurement orders for 1.7 billion bullets and 452 million hollow-point rounds?

* Why isn’t the U.S. border secure? Since 1993, the number of border and immigration officers tripled from 20,000 to 60,000, as undocumented entrants also tripled.

U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform | Washington D.C.

Hearing: ‘Firearms and Munitions at Risk: Examining Inadequate Safeguards’

Full Report

https://www.openthebooks.com/assets/1/7/Oversight_TheMilitarizationOfAmerica_06102016.pdf

Shocking Polls Show What U.S. Muslims Think of U.S. Laws

By

Steve Balich

-

July 6, 2016

0

Shocking Polls Show What U.S. Muslims Think of U.S. Laws

2016-07-05 | Andrew G. Bostom, PJ Media

As July 4 approaches, new polling data reveal non-Muslim Americans are increasingly cognizant of the threat Sharia — Islam’s totalitarian religio-political “law” — poses to their basic liberties. Overwhelmingly, they reject its encroachment in the United States.
But polling data also reveal that an ominous, growing proportion of American Muslims wish to impose Sharia on America.
Opinion Savvy polled a random sample of 803 registered voters — 98.2% non-Muslim, and 1.8% Muslim (with age, race, gender, political affiliation, and region propensity score-weighted to reduce biases) — from June 19 to June 20, 2016. They asked:
Do you believe that the United States government should screen, or actively identify individuals entering the United States who support Sharia law?
Seventy-one percent affirmed:
Yes, supporters of Sharia should be identified before they are admitted into the US.
The group answering “yes” was then asked:
Once identified, do you believe that individuals who support the practice of Sharia law should be admitted into the United States?
Eighty percent responded:
No, supporters of Sharia should not be admitted into the US.
The next query, which addressed only foreign visitors, elicited an even more emphatic demand for fidelity to bedrock First Amendment principles. It asked:
Do you believe that the United States government should require all foreign individuals entering the United States to affirm that they will uphold the principles of the constitution, such as freedom of religion and speech, above all personal ideologies for the duration of their stay in the country?
Seventy-eight percent insisted:
Yes, visitors to the US should be required to agree to uphold the constitution, regardless of their personal ideology, as a condition of their visit.
The unblinkered assessment of Sharia validates its broadly shared rejection by non-Muslim Americans, but also illustrates how increased U.S. Muslim Sharia support represents a dangerous trend.
Time Is Running Out for American Muslims
The Sharia, Islam’s canon law, is traceable to Koranic verses and edicts (45:18, 42:13, 42:21, 5:48; 4:34, 5:33-34, 5:38, 8:12-14; 9:5, 9:29, 24:2-4), as further elaborated in the “hadith” — the traditions of Islam’s prophet Muhammad and the earliest Muslim community — and codified into formal “legal” rulings by Islam’s greatest classical legists. Sharia is a retrogressive development compared with the evolution of clear distinctions between “ritual, the law, moral doctrine, good customs in society, etc.,” within Western European Christendom.
Sharia is utterly incompatible with the conceptions of human rights enshrined in the U.S. Bill of Rights.
Here are some liberty-crushing, dehumanizing Sharia sanctions: open-ended jihadism to subjugate the world to a totalitarian Islamic order; rejection of bedrock Western liberties — including freedom of conscience and speech — enforced by imprisonment, beating, or death; discriminatory relegation of non-Muslims to outcast, vulnerable pariahs, and even Muslim women to subservient chattel; and barbaric punishments which violate human dignity such as amputation for theft, stoning to death for adultery, and lashing for alcohol consumption.
Compounding these fundamental freedom- and dignity-abrogating iniquities, “matters of procedure” under Islamic law are antithetical to Western conceptions of the rule of law. “Evidentiary proof” is non-existent by Western legal standards, and the Shariadoctrine of siyasa (“government” or “administration”) grants wide latitude to the ruling elites — rendering permissible arbitrary threats, beatings, and imprisonments of defendants to extract “confessions,” particularly from “dubious” suspects. Clearly, Sharia “standards” are intellectually and morally inferior to the antithetical concepts which underpin Western law.
From October 22 to October 26, 2012, Wenzel Strategies polled 600 U.S. Muslims of high socio-economic status. They were asked:

Do you believe that criticism of Islam or Muhammad should be permitted under the Constitution’s First Amendment?

Regarding this most fundamental U.S. right, 58% replied “no.” Only 42% affirmed this most basic manifestation of freedom of speech, i.e., to criticize religious or any other dogma.
Indeed, oblivious to U.S. constitutional law as opposed to Islam’s Sharia, a largely concordant 45% of respondents agreed with the following:

[T]hose who criticize or parody Islam in the U.S. should face criminal charges.

Only 38% did not; 17% were “unsure.”
Moreover, fully 12% of this Muslim sample even admitted they believed in application of the draconian, Sharia-based punishment for the non-existent crime of “blasphemy” in the U.S. code, answering affirmatively that:

Americans who criticize or parody Islam should be put to death.

In June of 2015, data from a survey of another 600 U.S. Muslims conducted by the respected political pollster Kellyanne Conway revealed:

51% … agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Sharia.

Perhaps most frightening, 25% of those polled agreed:

[V]iolence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad.

Why is Sharia supremacism — which is diametrically opposed to U.S. Constitutional law — so alarmingly prevalent among U.S. Muslims? The inescapable conclusion, validated in Senate Judiciary Committee testimony this week by Department of Homeland Security whistleblower Philip Haney, is that mainstream institutional Islam within the U.S. inculcates this liberty-crushing mentality.
Haney’s presentation mentioned in passing the mainstream Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America, (AMJA). Well-accepted by thebroader American Muslim community, the Islamic scholars affiliated with AMJA have attained influential positions in universities, Islamic centers, and mosques throughout the United States. AMJA scholars train American imams. They issue online “fatwas” — Islamic Sharia rulings — to guide individual Muslims. Should the mainstream AMJA accomplish its unabashed goal of implementing Sharia in North America, the organization has already issued a ruling which sanctions the killing of non-Muslim “blasphemers.”
Donald Trump’s rational call for a moratorium on Muslim immigration, especially from hotbeds of violent Sharia supremacism, must be viewed gimlet-eyed bearing in mind irrefragable data capturing U.S. (here, here) and global Muslim attitudes, as well as the behavior of mainstream, institutional American Islam.
Forty years ago, Husayn al-Quwatli — director general of Dar al-Ifta, the center of spiritual authority for the Sunni community of Lebanon, and author of the treatise Islam, the State, and Secularism (1975) — candidly elucidated the Muslim Sharia supremacist mindset which perhaps best validates Trump’s moratorium:

The position of Islam is very clear on one point, namely that the true Muslim cannot take a disinterested position vis-à-vis the state. As a result, his position with regard to ruler and rule cannot be an indecisive one which is content with half solutions.
Either the ruler is Muslim and the rule Islamic, then he will be content with the state and support it, or the ruler non-Muslim and the rule non-Islamic, then he rejects it, opposes it, and works to abolish it, gently or forcibly, openly or secretly.

Action Alert/ House GOP to Promote Muslim Brotherhood, Gun Control Agenda this Week

By

Steve Balich

-

July 6, 2016

0

From: DCattoni@aol.com
To: dcattoni@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2016 1:50:20 PM
Subject: ALERT! Please Call your Representatives on ‘anti-terror’ package & Kate’s law

House GOP to Promote Muslim Brotherhood, Gun Control Agenda this Week
In case you thought congressional Republicans would be infused with a fresh sense of constitutionalism, patriotism, and moral clarity on the heels of this Independence Day weekend, think again. House Republicans will continue their dyslexic response to Orlando by validating the Left’s entire premise regarding homeland security and guns.
Last week, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas (A, 97%) conducted a hearing which revealed that the Department of Homeland Security, at the behest of Muslim Brotherhood organizations, is deleting critical counter-terrorism research that would have connected many Muslim Brotherhood leaders to global Islamic terror networks and could have prevented some of the recent attacks. When Cruz asked Jeh Johnson, Secretary of Homeland Security, about this at a subsequent hearing, the lead homeland security officer vehemently denied having any knowledge of the cover-up and adamantly declined to investigate it.
A sane Republican Party would immediately pursue this issue, and the failure to do so belies our failed homeland security policy. Instead, Republicans plan to pass an “anti-terror package,” which actually validates the very Muslim Brotherhood agenda endangering our homeland. The House will vote on H.R. 5611, which would grow the fledgling department even more by creating the Office for Partnerships to Prevent Terrorism to engage the Muslim community in pursuit of counter-terrorism strategies. This bill mirrors Rep. Michael McCaul’s R, Texas (D, 60%) “Countering Violent Extremism” bill which passed the House Committee on Homeland Security last year and appoints a new assistant secretary that will be unaccountable to Congress. The bill tasks the Civil Rights and Civil Liberties office of DHS, which serves as ground zero for Muslim Brotherhood influence on this administration, with dispensing the grant funds. The legislation also uses inaccurate liberal talking points with regards to the nature of the Islamic threat and lone wolf attacks. VOTE NO ON HR 5611 https://www.conservativereview.com/scorecard

Wouldn’t it be prudent to have both houses of Congress focus on the same messaging this week and put the Democrats on defense?
After taking incoming fire from conservatives for echoing and legitimizing the Muslim Brotherhood agenda, this new bill scrubs all references to “violent” extremism and indeed uses the term Islamic extremism. This is a complete dog and pony show. The problem with the existing policies of DHS are not limited to the nomenclature. House leaders could use the term “Islamic” to appease conservatives, but, absent a wholesale makeover of the department’s personnel and a complete ban on Muslim Brotherhood participation, the new funds and offices will be used to expand the existing dangerous policies. It’s akin to throwing more money and resources at a fire department that has already been infiltrated by arsonists.

If Republicans were serious about fixing the problem, they would bar any grant funds from going to groups implicated in the Holy Land Foundation trial. They could mandate reforms to the counter-terrorism training for federal law enforcement officers in light of Phil Haney’s expose showing how the DHS and FBI scrubbed all fact-based training in Islamic history and Islamic law for the purpose of formulating threat assessments.
Immediately following the Orlando attack, I listed eight ways Republicans can go on offense. Sadly, they’ve chosen to go on offense for Democrats. In addition to expanding DHS offices that Obama will stock with Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers, the bill contains a provision expanding the power of the Attorney General to deny gun purchases to those listed on random terror watch lists. Although this provision is not nearly as sweeping as the Democratic proposal, the entire premise of focusing on this non-sequitur is offensive. It’s preposterous to focus on lists that never net potential terrorists while there are known individuals or groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood who are given security clearances in our homeland security agencies. Also, the minute Republicans pass this bill, the Obama administration could expand the watch list to include anyone, perhaps even political enemies.
WHY WOULD THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS PASS A DEMOCRAT BILL? VOTE NO TO HR5611
The sad irony is that the Senate will actually focus on something worthy this week – going after sanctuary cities and instituting mandatory minimum sentences for illegal aliens who re-enter the country after being deported. The latter bill is Ted Cruz’s “Kate’s Law,” addressing the many criminal aliens that continue to re-enter the country, including the one who killed Kate Steinle in San Francisco last year. Wouldn’t it be prudent to have both houses of Congress focus on the same messaging this week and put the Democrats on defense? Instead, House Republicans will allow Democrats to continue distracting the public with their gun control agenda. Alas, after the Senate undermined conservatives for the past two weeks, it must be too much to ask that both chambers actually stay on message for one week.

– See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/07/house-gop-to-promote-muslim-brotherhood-gun-control-agenda-this-week#sthash.NEeJr7I9.dpuf

The most detested man in D.C. Dick Durbin, plans on voting NO to Kate’s law because he doesn’t agree with ‘the mandatory minimum of 5 years’.

CALL HIS OFFICE AT 202-224-2152. SB2193

Durbin admits he ORDERED the FBI to purge words deemed ‘offensive’ to Muslims from training manual!

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/06/30/dick-durbin-admits-he-ordered-the-fbi-to-purge-words-deemed-offensive-to-muslims-from-manual-358992

Dick Durbin admits he ordered the FBI to purge words deemed ‘offensive’ to Muslims from manual

“I asked for it, because there were provisions in the training manual which were…

Homer 33C establishes concussion guidelines

Uncategorized

By

Steve Balich

-

July 6, 2016

0

News Release
Homer CCSD 33C
Goodings Grove Luther J. Schilling William E. Young William J. Butler
Hadley Middle Homer Jr. High

Contact: Charla Brautigam, Communications/Public Relations Manager
cbrautigam@homerschools.org | 708-226-7628

For Immediate Release:
July 5, 2016

Homer 33C establishes concussion guidelines

If a child suffers a concussion at school or home, Homer School District 33C teachers and staff are ready to assist.

The district has created a policy and procedure manual outlining what to do if a child suffers a concussion. It includes:

Key terms associated with concussion and its management
Procedures for reporting a concussion and follow-up guidelines
Forms and information that can be duplicated and distributed to concerned parties
General features of good concussion management

“This document reflects Illinois state law requirements for schools to implement Return to Learn and Return to Play guidelines that are designed to support the student with a concussion and maximize full recovery and quality of life,” Kathleen Robinson, assistant superintendent for instruction, reported at the June 28 Board of Education meeting.

The document was developed by the district’s Concussion Oversight Team, comprised of Robinson, Athletic Director Amanda Monahan, Certified School Nurse Melissa Geibel and School Psychologist Gwent Grant.

The team was guided by research from Lurie Children’s Hospital and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which found 80 percent of children are ready to return to play one to four weeks after suffering a concussion.

Based on those findings, the team came up with a table and flowchart to help teachers, coaches and parents determine when it’s OK for students with concussions to return to their academic studies (Return to Learn) and athletic programs (Return to Play).

The Return to Learn table outlines six stages of recovery (such as no school/limited cognitive ability and gradual reintroduction of daily activities) and lists corresponding activities or restrictions that students should follow.

Before advancing from one stage to the next, students must be able to tolerate activities (free of headaches, nausea, dizziness and other symptoms associated with concussions) for 12 to 24 hours.

Only after students can tolerate all pre-injury academic activities and schedules will they be allowed to consider returning to athletic activities. The student’s physician will be responsible for monitoring the Return to Play Protocol and return to physical education activities.

To help guide the process, students, parents, teachers and coaches may follow the district’s Return to Play flowchart, which outlines steps each individual should take and the documentation needed from the family physician.

“Successful recovery from a concussion requires that the student is surrounded by family and professionals who communicate frequently, are knowledgeable about what to do in the early days, are calm and supportive, and assist the student in managing exertion and rest balance,” the team concluded in its report.

The Homer 33C Concussion Guidelines will be shared and discussed with coaches, teachers and staff during upcoming training sessions and posted on the district website, said Robinson.

Like us on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/homer33c?fref=ts&ref=br_tf

Press release for Homer Township Fire Trustees to be elected instead of appointed

By

Steve Balich

-

July 6, 2016

0

For immediate release Contact: David Curtis

Date: 6-22-16

815-483-5649/ dcurtis911@hotmail.com

Phone/email address

Referendum Would Empower Homer Township Voters

Voters in the Homer Township Fire Protection District would gain the right to elect trustees to the fire protection board under provisions of a referendum that could appear on the November general election ballot.

Township residents, including HTFPD firefighters, have begun circulating petitions to put the question on the ballot. If approved by voters in the fall, citizens would begin voting for candidates for the fire protection district’s board of fire trustees. Currently, fire trustees are appointed by the Homer Township Board of Trustees.

By changing to an elected fire protection board, residents would gain direct control over the expenditure of their tax dollars while simultaneously assuming an active role in policies that affect public safety.

“By giving ballot box power to citizens we can assure full community participation in the way we pick our fire protection district trustees,” said David Curtis, with the Homer Township professional firefighters. “Direct election of our public officials is the very backbone of our American system of government. This simply gives power to the people whose safety and money are at stake.”

Curtis said volunteers will be going door-to-door in the coming weeks collecting signatures to put the question on the November 8 ballot. If the measure is ultimately approved by voters, citizens would begin voting for fire protection district candidates beginning in 2017.

David Curtis

815-483-5649 (cell)

dcurtis911@hotmail.com

Sent from my iPhone

Madigan power comes from Controlling the district map

By

Steve Balich

-

July 5, 2016

0

Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan’s first political splash had nothing to do with policy. It wasn’t a blueprint for a better state. It wasn’t middle-class jobs growth. It wasn’t a successful welfare program.
It was cartography.
Political mapmaking is how Madigan first took hold of a position he’s held for 31 of the past 33 years: speaker of the House. For comparison’s sake, the median age in the Land of Lincoln is 36, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
While Madigan has endured a few legislative embarrassments over the years, he’s never lost the vote he desires most from House Democrats. His caucus has elected him speaker 16 times in a row.
Madigan’s grip over Illinois government did not begin with a bold vision. Not with lofty ideals. Not with a broad coalition.
It began with random chance, a will to power and a top hat worn by Abraham Lincoln.

In the wake of the 1980 census, an eight-member panel evenly split between Democrats and Republicans was charged with remapping Illinois’ legislative districts. The panel failed to come to an agreement. To break the gridlock, a ninth member of the panel was drawn at random. Out of Lincoln’s hat, no less.
The name drawn was that of former Democratic Gov. Sam Shapiro. That made Madigan, then House minority leader, mapmaker-in-chief. The panel was as good as his.
Many observers thought the 1980 census numbers would be a disaster for Illinois Democrats. A growing suburban population and an exodus from Chicago meant the Windy City was entitled to no more than 15.5 Illinois Senate seats and 31 Illinois House seats, according toresearch from NPR Illinois.
Not on Madigan’s watch.
His 1981 map gave Chicago 19 Senate seats and 37 House seats. Many of those districts overlapped with the suburbs, diluting Republican votes.
Years later, former state Rep. John O’Connell, D-Western Springs, told the Chicago Tribune he didn’t think any map could save his seat. But after O’Connell told Madigan he was worried, that all changed:
“He said, ‘What do you need?’ I said, ‘Two more census tracts [of heavy Democratic voting].’ He called back a couple days later and said, ‘You’ve got your two census tracts.’”
O’Connell went on to win his next three House races.
And that wasn’t all. When a “cutback” amendment ratified by voters in 1980 axed 59 seats from the Illinois House, Madigan’s map ensured 43 of those seats belonged to the GOP.
Madigan’s mapmaking would keep Democratic majorities in the Illinois House and Senate for the next decade. The Tribune heralded the arrival of a mastermind.
“He is a political wizard,” the paper’s editorial board wrote Dec. 18, 1981.
Two years later, House Democrats, many of whom would not have been in the Statehouse if not for Madigan’s map, elected him speaker.
The rest is history.
Just as Madigan’s ascent to power was devoid of any actual policies to better the state, so too has been his speakership. A transactional system based on fear, favoritism and absolute control reigns over House Democrats.

A 1989 story in the Tribune detailed how Madigan was able to concentrate his power so quickly.
When reporters asked one lawmaker what Madigan expected in return for funneling thousands of dollars into his campaign fund, the answer was simple: “I suspect Mike will ask me to vote for him for speaker.”
Tribune reporters also told the tale of former state Rep. Richard Mautino, D-Spring Valley, who dared vote against Madigan for speaker in 1987. He was immediately deprived of a vice chairmanship on a House committee. Two years later, he would vote for Madigan, who promptly made Mautino chairman of the House Insurance Committee.
“Power is like beauty,” Madigan once said. “Much of it is in the eye of the beholder.”
Rank-and-file Democrats should take that to heart. In January 2017, they’ll likely be voting for their speaker once again.
Will they have the guts to stand up for themselves? For Democratic ideals? For voters who are sick and tired of lacking real representation? Or will they simply be another footnote in Madigan’s legacy of gamesmanship?
Illinoisans should remember their elected officials do have that choice. And just like any other vote, lawmakers should be held responsible for its consequences.

An Honest Moment in Springfield

Single-payer hitting close to home

TUESDAY, JULY 05, 2016 Illinois Review

ILLINOIS AMONG TOP 10 LOCATIONS FOR TAKING IN SYRIAN REFUGEES

Even More Turncoat Republicans Side With Radical Gun Control!

Shocking Polls Show What U.S. Muslims Think of U.S. Laws

RECENT POSTS

EDITOR PICKS

POPULAR POSTS

POPULAR CATEGORY