↓ Archives ↓

Archive → December 5th, 2015

Late to the Party

Late to the Party  by Gretchen Fritz  12/4/2015

Guns and Freedom

So by now you have heard all the news the mainstream media is willing to release about the massacre in San Bernadino.  You remember that earlier this year a Muslim adherent shot several of our military service members in Chattanooga and two others tried to attack a freedom of speech event in Texas.  And you have probably heard the news report that ISIS claims to have operatives in at least 15 states here in the U.S., many ready and willing to carry out missions for them.  It appears that the wolf is at the door.


Many people I know who have an outlet to do so are calling for more or less everyone to get a license (or permit, outside of Illinois) to legally carry concealed, buy a gun and learn how to use it.  I will include myself in that statement as well.  We believe that in the current environment in which ISIS is becoming more aggressive and other people are apparently “snapping” at an increased pace, carrying a gun is basically the only way to increase our chances of getting home alive.


I will now make a bold statement: I believe that the people of Illinois and Wisconsin will be better able to defend themselves than people in almost any other state.  I say this because Illinois and Wisconsin were the last two states to legalize concealed carry.  Wisconsin has only had it since 2011, Illinois since 2013.


I have two reasons for making this bold assertion.  The first is that our training is more recent.  In Illinois everyone took their firearm training classes no more than two years ago.  We have seen a resurgence recently in our classes, so many people are just now getting their training requirements satisfied.


The second reason I think we will more successfully defend ourselves is because the newness of concealed carry hasn’t worn off for us yet.  It still has that new car smell.  We’re still excited about it.  We still check out each other’s hardware and holsters, discussing what has worked and what hasn’t.  We still carry every day or as many days as we can, legally.  Before I leave the house, I think, “I have my phone, my keys and my gun. Okay.”


Anecdotally, judging by Facebook, there are a lot of people itching for a fight.  So ISIS may want to stay out of Illinois and Wisconsin for a while.


Stay safe out there, everyone.  As my boss says: be nice to everyone but know how you’re going to kill them.

Source: Will County News


texas_secessionThe Lone Star State will find out on Saturday just how eager its Republicans are to reconstitute the Republic of Texas.

A state GOP committee in Austin passed a secession resolution on Friday that will require a full-party vote on Saturday. The non-binding measure would gauge the desire among state Republicans to secede.

“If the federal government continues to disregard the constitution and the sovereignty of the State of Texas, the State of Texas should reassert its status as an independent nation,” the measure reads, the Chronicle reported Friday.

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

State Republican Executive Committee member Tanya Robertson of Galveston and Brazoria counties introduced the resolution due to constituents’ demands.

A Declaration of Independence from Mexico was issued March 1, 1836, to found the Republic of Texas. Sam Houston was subsequently elected president and general of the Texas army, which would then take on Mexico’s Gen. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna.

“Let’s make their victory worse than a defeat,” Texas Col. William B. Travis said of Santa Anna’s 4,000-man army as they approached the Alamo in San Antonio, historian Larry Schweikart writes in “A Patriot’s History of the United States.”


Texas would eventually go on to join the Union on Dec. 29, 1845.

If the SREC approves the secession resolution on Saturday, then it will appear on the March 1, 2016, Republican primary ballot.

The Chronicle managed to interview 13 of 40 members of the SREC this week. Six members supported a vote on independence, six opposed, and one declined to comment.

“The Liberty Amendments” is the blueprint on how to fix our broken government by Mark Levin, the #1 New York Times bestselling author of “Liberty and Tyranny” and “Ameritopia.” Order it today at WND’s Superstore.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1861 that secession is illegal, and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote to a citizen on the issue in 2006, “If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, ‘one Nation, indivisible.’),” the Wall Street Journal reported.

Pro-secession Texans would likely prepare its citizens for the federal government’s reaction by citing the Declaration of Independence, signed July 4, 1776.

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2014/03/texas_flag.jpg


Copyright 2015 WND

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/texas-secession-resolution-passes-gop-committee/#OAV2YLpVM7cxc2QD.99

Source: Will County News

Don’t leave your 13 & under child alone or big government will thak them away

Any parents who leave their children age 13 or younger home alone may be guilty of neglect under Illinois state law.

That’s because Illinois law states that “any minor under the age of 14 years whose parent or other person responsible for the minor’s welfare leaves the minor without supervision for an unreasonable period of time without regard for the mental or physical health, safety, or welfare of that minor” is neglected.

It’s the strictest law of its kind in the nation. Only a handful of other states have a minimum age for leaving children home alone. For example, three states list 12 as the minimum age for leaving children home alone, while three states set the minimum age at 8. Kansas lists the minimum age at 6. At least 30 states have no minimum age for when a child can be left home alone.

While the law in Illinois defines neglect only where the child under 14 years old is left without supervision for an unreasonable period of time without regard for his or her mental or physical, health, safety or welfare, it does not define “unreasonable period of time” or “regard for the mental or physical health, safety or welfare.” Rather, it provides a non-exhaustive list of 15 factors for a court to determine. But that provides practically no guidance to a parent trying to decide when they can or can’t leave their 13-year-old without supervision.

Furthermore, those 15 factors are only considered by a court or government official after the child has been taken into custody away from his or her parent, which can be done without a warrant. Even if the child is released back to his or her parent and the court finds no neglect under the factors, having the government take your child away from you for a period of time and being accused of neglecting your child is traumatic. Having to justify to the government that you have not neglected your child can be humiliating and intrusive.

This process is also traumatic to the child. Being taken into custody could lead the child to believe that he or she has done something wrong. It also communicates to the child the message that their parents are somehow parenting poorly, even if parents are not at fault. It also can signal to the child that his or her independence is disfavored.

Common sense tells us most 13-year olds are perfectly capable of staying home alone after school while their parent is at work, but that’s no guarantee that an overzealous police officer or government official won’t take that child into custody, requiring the government to make that determination.

This law disproportionally affects single-parent, lower-income households, where paying for child care after school is cost-prohibitive. The law essentially targets parents who have no other choice but to have their children stay home alone after school while they are at work.

Parents make decisions about whether to leave their children alone based on a number of different factors, including their values, their needs and their child’s ability and maturity. Hardworking single parents should not have to be concerned about the government taking their child into custody because they leave them home alone after school. Parents are the best people to determine their child’s ability to be left unsupervised, not the state.

Illinois lawmakers should act to revise the law to make clear what is and what is not considered neglect and to provide assurance to parents that leaving their responsible children home alone after school will not result in the state taking those kids into custody.

Jeffrey Schwab

Staff Attorney

Source: Will County News

They sold out the children in the name of political correctness

District 211 Leadership: Incompetent, Dishonest or Both?
High School District 211 Superintendent Dan Cates, with Associate Superintendent Lisa Small.
[Photo by Mark Welsh, Daily Herald]

District 211 Leadership Incompetent, Dishonest or Both?
Written By Laurie Higgins
ACLU attorney John Knight who represents the gender-dysphoric boy in the lawsuit against District 211 has issued this statement about the agreement reached between the district and the Office for Civil Rights (OCR)—a clarification that should deeply trouble District 211 community members:

We also remain disturbed by the inaccurate, misleading and fundamentally troubling language used by the District, even as they adopt this agreement. For example, the District said last night that transgender students who are provided access to locker rooms consistent with their gender identity “will utilize a private changing station when changing clothes or showering” and will not be allowed unrestricted access to the locker room. This is not what the agreement with OCR provides. The agreement specifically says that “based on Student A’s representation that she will change in private changing stations in the girls’ locker rooms, the District agrees to provide Student A access to locker room facilities designated for female students at school.” Nowhere does the agreement require Student A to use a private area to dress and such a requirement would be blatantly discriminatory. [emphasis added]

According to the ACLU of Illinois, the Office for Civil Rights “clearly stated that our client, like all students, does not have to use a privacy curtain. She may choose to do so, but she is not required to use the privacy curtain under the settlement.

To my non-attorney eyes, it appears that Knight and the OCR are correct. This is what the agreement actually states:

For the duration of Student A’s enrollment in the District:

1. based on Student A’s representation that she will change in private changing stations in the girls’ locker rooms, the District agrees to provide Student A access to locker room facilities designated for female students at school and to take steps to protect the privacy of its students by installing and maintaining sufficient privacy curtains (private changing stations) within the girls’ locker rooms to accommodate Student A and any students who wish to be assured of privacy while changing;

There is no requirement that the boy use the private changing stations.

Moreover, again according to the ACLU of Illinois, the OCR claims the agreement between District 211 and the OCR “applies to all students, not just our client,” which directly contradicts what the district is claiming in its Frequently Asked Questions:

Will this Resolution Agreement require specific locker room access for all transgender students in District 211?

No. The Resolution Agreement pertains to one student in District 211 — the student who filed the original complaint with the Office for Civil Rights.

Will this Resolution Agreement require specific locker room access for transgender students in all school districts throughout the state and nation?

No. The Resolution Agreement pertains to one student in District 211 and does not extend to other students in District 211 or to other school districts.

District 211 taxpayers should be troubled by either the incompetent lack of understanding by district leaders or their deception.

In another frequently asked question, the district admits that the school which the gender-dysphoric boy attends will not be identified and that no parents will be notified if a gender-dysphoric student will be using a locker room with their sons or daughters.

Hard science-denier John Knight also made this ludicrous and ironic statement:

[T]he District continues to demonstrate a wanton ignorance of the science of gender by persisting in drawing a false distinction between transgender persons’ gender and anatomy. Let me be clear. My client is a girl – full stop.

The District’s refusal to accept transgender students as girls and boys is extremely harmful for all students, but especially those who are transgender. We had hoped the District would embrace this moment as an opportunity to educate itself and its community about what it means to be transgender. Unfortunately, that has not happened.

Precisely what “science” proves that there exists no distinction between gender-dysphoric persons’ “gender and anatomy”? If there were no distinction between their “gender” and anatomy, then gender-dysphoric persons would not be lopping off breasts and penises, shaving down Adam’s apples, adding fake breasts, and taking puberty-blockers and dangerous cross-sex hormones.

Clearly there is a distinction between the gender-dysphoric boy’s anatomy/biology and his “gender” (i.e., his desire about his anatomy/biology). His objective, scientifically verifiable anatomy (and barring the presence of an intersex condition, his DNA) is male. He desires to be female. That, Mr. Knight, is a distinction.

No one is obligated to accept the a-scientific proposition that the descriptor “girl” refers to a psychological condition rather than a biological condition. Mr. Knight’s client is a boy—full stop.

Source: Will County News

James Marter the better choice for IL. Senate responds to Kirk’s vote to keep Obamacare



UPDATE x1: Kirk’s GOP primary opponent James Marter responded to Kirk’s vote Friday morning, saying that Kirk has promised since 2010 to repeal the Affordable Care Act after Democrats passed it into law, but when he finally got the opportunity to make good on his promise, Senator Kirk voted “no.”  

“He is wrong for free markets and wrong for ILLINOIS!” Marter writes in his statement provided below.

WASHINGTON DC – Thursday night, Illinois’ U.S. Senator Mark Kirk was one of only two Republicans that voted “no” on a measure to defund Planned Parenthood and repeal Obamacare. Maine’s U.S. Senator Susan Collins was the other Republican to oppose the measure.

The bill, H.R. 3792, will return to the U.S. House, where it is likely to pass. But once it gets to President Obama’s desk, it will be dead on arrival.

Kirk has consistently defended tax dollars going to Planned Parenthood, despite undercover videos revealing that various Planned Parenthood clinics were selling baby body parts for medical research. Planned Parenthood at first denied the practice, then promised to end it.

Kirk’s campaign is confident they will win the Republican nomination next March, and have totally disconnected from GOP grassroots’ appeals to reverse his pro-Planned Parenthood position. At least two Republican township organizations have censored Kirk for his support for taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood, but Kirk nor his campaign have indicated they are sensitive to or aware of the local organization developments.

Those who voted “no” on H.R. 3762 included:

Screen Shot 2015-12-04 at 9.09.03 AM

James Marter – Kirk’s GOP primary opponent – issued the following statement Friday morning:

Senator Kirk voting again with Senator Durbin (D-IL) along Democratic Party lines, in spite of promises dating back to 2010 to repeal the ACA after it was passed. When a Vote finally occurs, Senator Kirk, votes NO.  He is wrong for free markets and wrong for ILLINOIS!

Senator Kirk does not get that it is NOT OK for the Federal Government to demand of its citizen’s that they must purchase a “product” in a government manipulated and controlled market-place.  A “product” which you cannot see, hear, touch, smell, nor taste, which cannot guarantee you any services, which comes with exorbitant ever increasing manipulated prices and deductibles, which no working American can afford.  If one fails to comply, the formerly free American citizen, is now a criminal, subject to fines and imprisonment for failure to pay said fines, with the full force of the IRS bearing down.

What has our Senator in ILLINOIS done to stop it? He’s been in Washington 15 years now. We have an un-constitutional Un-affordable Care Act, violating religious freedom, killing Jobs and bankrupting working-taxpaying Americans, or forcing them to forgo healthcare they need, due to the high costs.

There are numerous common sense ways to solve the problem of health care costs and accessibility:  tort reform, portability across states lines and portability from employer plans, individual access to group plans, health savings accounts, and opening prescription drug markets to competition.  It’s a complex problem, mostly created and worsened by government intervention, it is time for a change and time for a candidate who can fix the problems to represent Republican values, who is RIGHT for ILLINOIS!  If you are interested in learning more about James Marter’s campaign for US Senate, visit www.marter4senate.us

Source: Will County News