↓ Archives ↓

Archive → January 13th, 2016

Illinois quickly closed in on a new all-time low for manufacturing jobs

As 2015 came to an end, Illinois quickly closed in on a new all-time low for manufacturing jobs, with a net of 14,500 factory jobs lost through the first 11 months of the year, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Illinois hit its lowest point for manufacturing jobs at the absolute bottom of the Great Recession in January 2010. After years of gradual decline, the Great Recession caused industrial states to sink to their worst levels for factory work in decades.

Most states have experienced a significant recovery of manufacturing jobs since the recession bottom. And even Illinois experienced a slow recovery for two years, from January 2010 through July 2012. But after that brief recovery, Illinois has been losing manufacturing jobs for more than three years, and is on pace to reach a new all-time low as soon as the end of 2016.

Illinois’ manufacturing jobs recovery ended in July 2012, and since then, the flow of manufacturing losses has resumed. The Land of Lincoln has lost 19,600 manufacturing jobs on net since July 2012, while surrounding states have continued to add factory jobs during the same time period.
Illinois job losses accelerated in 2015, with a net 14,500 factory jobs lost on the year, accounting for the majority of Illinois’ job losses since the summer of 2012. Meanwhile, most surrounding states continued to post gains in factory jobs in 2015.
If Illinois loses the same number of manufacturing jobs in 2016 as it lost in 2015, the Land of Lincoln will reach a new all-time low for manufacturing work. These working-class jobs are disappearing in significant numbers in Illinois alone, pointing to Illinois-specific problems. Manufacturers who have left Illinois have laid out the reasons, citing out-of-control property taxes and a broken workers’ compensation system, among other problems.

The Illinois Policy Institute supports a legislative agenda to counter these anti-worker policies and kick-start hiring and new investment in Illinois’ manufacturing sector. Structural economic reforms will allow Illinoisans to leverage the state’s location, talent and resources to create more jobs, increase incomes and manufacture more made-in-Illinois products. The package of reforms should include:

  • Regulatory reform to fix Illinois’ broken workers’ compensation system, which drives manufacturing jobs out of the state
  • Regulatory reform to improve the state’s anti-business lawsuit climate
  • Tax and spending reform to freeze and lower the nation’s second-highest property taxes and allow local governments to control budget costs
  • Tax reform to exempt businesses from sales taxation on the purchase of business inputs. This would broaden the concept behind the manufacturers’-purchase credit and the manufacturing- and machinery-equipment credits so that Illinoisans only pay sales tax on final products, not on the inputs used to make them.
  • Statewide or local Right-to-Work laws to attract new investment and protect worker paychecks
  • Education reform to bring shop class back to high schools. A broader vision of education should include in manufacturing areas schools that specialize in training students for careers as makers, so that interested students can graduate ready to succeed in good manufacturing jobs.

Illinoisans are ready to compete in manufacturing against other states and countries; they can win with better brains and brawn and a superior location. But none of that matters if industry is smothered by misguided policies. Economic reforms should be enacted to unleash Illinois’ sectors that have long suffered under the policies of industrial malaise.

Michael Lucci

Vice President of Policy

Source: Will County News

Real strategies for removing federal presence from Western lands

Real strategies for removing federal presence from Western lands
Posted on January 12, 2016 by Brandon Smith

Oregon standoff


Oregon standoff
When activist movements enter into confrontation with a corrupt government or establishment structure, often the temptation is to stick rather closely to what they know. The problem with this is that even though circumstances change and the fighting escalates, people will still turn to their old standby methods for defending themselves. This makes these movements repetitive, predictable and ineffective.

In the case of the liberty movement, the more passive tactic of marches and sign waving is immediately suggested. But inevitably some hothead is going to demand one of two things: a mass armed surge on the steps of Washington, D.C., or some kind of Alamo-inspired cinematic standoff. You would think that these strategies were the only two in existence; they are brought up so often it becomes mind-numbing.

I can understand (to a point) why the standoff concept keeps popping up. The movement has seen it work at least once at Bundy ranch. However, Bundy ranch came with a very specific set of circumstances that made the standoff strategy useful. The ranch was private property owned by freedom-minded people; it was a home being invaded by federal agents exhibiting intent to do physical harm and confiscate the livelihood of those in their crosshairs. Whether or not people agreed with the grazing rights issues that originally triggered the standoff, no one with any moral fortitude could deny that the Fed response was unacceptable.

The standoff had direct strategic value to the situation; it had a concrete purpose, which was to stop the federal incursion, prevent harm to the people involved and prevent further theft of property. The liberty movement also had the most important advantage of all: We were invited to make a stand there, and many of the locals supported our initiatives.

If all of these elements are not present in any given situation, then the standoff method is a pointless and foolish endeavor. It ultimately does more harm than good.

To argue the nature of the cause does little to change the strategic reality. We can wax philosophical all day on the nature of federal overreach and the train of abuses suffered by common people. We can preach passionately about the villainy of the Bureau of Land Management and the need for its erasure. We can discuss endlessly the nature of patriotism and duty and the will to do what is right or necessary. It is a fine thing to clarify your standing on the issues in the face of ideological opposition from statists whose only interest is to blindly support the power of federal government because they believe they benefit from the existing system. That said, in the end, strategy is not subject to emotional arguments.

Some methods are going to work, and others are definitely not going to work. And no amount of pride or fear or moral outrage or tears or indignant, reactionary thinking is going force bad strategies to become good strategies.

If you do not have an intelligent plan behind your actions, then your actions are pointless and doomed to failure. There is no way around this.

The argument has come up over and over again in the face of the recent Oregon standoff that any action is better than no action. I disagree. All actions have consequences. And if you are not patient enough to weigh the good consequences with the bad consequences, then you should not be taking action at all. Period. This is one of the few weaknesses of a leaderless movement like the liberty movement; when crisis strikes, hotheads forget the “leaderless” part and proclaim themselves the “tip of the spear.” Sadly, parts of the movement gravitate toward these hotheads because they see it as easier to be told what to do. And generally, hotheads make terrible leaders and inadequate tacticians. Disaster is usually the result.

As I outlined in “Internal war is now on the horizon for America,” anyone demanding support from the liberty movement must be willing and able to give a logical and practical analysis of why their strategy is the right one. Emotionally manipulative arguments and attempts to shame people into participation are not the right way to go. The burden of proof is on them, not you.

I am not here to ask for anyone’s support. I have put forward my concepts for non-participation and self-defense for years, and I have been enacting those strategies within my own community with success. I have been told many accounts of other people doing the same.

But if situations like Oregon are to escalate, I can see no other option but to offer alternative strategies that would work far better than the standoff model. All of these strategies are hypothetical in nature, and I am not responsible if any of them are applied in the real world. In this hypothetical analysis, I am not necessarily concerned with questions of “legality,” only questions of morality. There are often vast differences between that which is legal and that which is moral. I am also not interested in the arguments of statists who claim that the federal government’s jurisdiction is sacrosanct. Clearly, even if that were true, I do not care.

The following is a short list of methods that could be used effectively to remove federal presence from Western lands. None of these methods require directed violence, only self-defense if required.

Empowering locals

There is a plague within the liberty movement called the “sheepdog” mentality. The overall attitude by the pro-Oregon standoff crowd has been driven by this mentality. The sheepdog ideal is that some people are simply born helpless, and some are born with strength. That is to say, the locals in Oregon are seen as sheep, while Ammon Bundy and his associates see themselves as protectors (sheepdogs) that must travel from across the country to the rescue. The problem with this attitude is that it breeds arrogance and prevents the empowerment of locals.

If you are an outsider arriving in all your bluster to pat the little people on the head and treat them like children, then you will be seen as an unwanted carpetbagger. This is exactly what has happened in Harney County, Oregon, as the locals have released a statement asking Bundy to leave while they handle their own conflict with the Feds.

I applaud this mindset. You cannot help people that do not want your help. This is the bottom line. All you can do is offer your assistance or offer to make those people more effective in fighting back.

Oath Keepers has presented a standing offer to the people of Harney County to send Community Preparedness Teams to train locals so that they can handle their own problems. This should be done across the nation, but only where the locals have asked for such aid. Militias and other groups cannot possibly hope to project to every single place where there is conflict with the Feds; they can only prepare local people to take charge whenever possible. Treating them like children solves nothing.

Removing federal footprint

If you are facing off against an opponent vastly superior in arms and resources, then asymmetric tactics are the only way to win. And asymmetric tacticians recoil in horror at the very mention of a static position ending in a standoff scenario. This is the exact opposite of an effective plan, and smart rebellions avoid these situations at all costs unless there is considerable public support and a clear symbolic and psychological advantage to holding that piece of land.

Standoffs leave all initiative in the hands of the opponent. He decides how he is going to hit you and when. He has all the time in the world. He decides perimeter; he decides whether or not you receive further resources; and he can even determine the kind of information the public receives on the standoff itself if you have not thought ahead and established off-grid, long-range communications. It’s a dumb strategy.

I would first ask: What is the point of holding the ground that you are on? If there are no direct advantages except to thumb your nose at the Feds, then you are involved in a pointless exercise.

If you want to present a real threat to federal presence on Western lands, then why not remove their facilities one by one? Why not move in quickly, bulldoze the damn buildings into the dirt (there should be no people in them, of course), and then walk away? If this were done at numerous BLM sites across the country, their ability to remain active on these lands would be greatly hindered. Bureaucrats need their offices.

This is the same strategy the Founding Fathers used against the British; they attacked symbols of oppression as well, but they did not stick around like idiots afterward. When the Sons of Liberty dumped British tea into Boston harbor, they did not then take over the merchant ships screaming: “Come and get us!” No, they wore disguises, did what mattered and then left.

Helping locals use resources

A major point of contention between rural populations in the West and the federal government is the use of land to aid local economies. Because of draconian BLM and Environmental Protection Agency regulations and heavy-handed treatment, rural towns and counties are stifled in the use of the resources right under their own feet and around their very heads. This has resulted in the near collapse of rural economies, creating populations almost entirely dependent on the federal government for welfare and a minimum of jobs. It would appear to me that the goal of the Feds is, in fact, to make sure that rural people never achieve any kind of industrial independence again. So what is the solution?

Ignore federal obstructions and build industry anyway.

If a town or county wanted to actually save its economy from a steady downward spiral, if they asked for help, then the liberty movement could provide security while it rebuilds. For example, if a community that once depended on responsible logging is being strangled by the Feds, we prevent obstruction while the locals begin logging again. As stated earlier, this requires that the locals want aid. It is also the only instance in which holding a semi-static position makes sense. Saving a community from financial despair and welfare dependency is something I can believe in. Holding a meaningless piece of land with no tangible direct benefits to the community? I can’t put much faith in that idea, and most of the country will not buy into it either.

If a movement is going to take action, then it must be intelligently planned and executed. Being mindless and reactionary is often romanticized as if it is “decisive.” It is anything but. If the goal is to win, then staging one Alamo after another is not the best method. I fight to win, and so do many in the movement. The best way to win is not just to fight but to fight smart. As statists are happy to constantly remind us, the odds are already well against us. Intelligent strategy evens out all odds.

–Brandon Smith

Source: Will County News

Obama and Hillary Blame Youtube Video for Benghazi Terrorist Attack/ Now they deny it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Source: Will County News

We are to release Billions to Iran very soon/ How will they treat us then

American Elected people in Congress can stop all deals but they refuse. They are not willing to stand for our Country because they fear Obama. The American people are sick of all of them. Look at the leaders in the polls for proof. Trump and Cruz are leaders the people trust will fight for our Country.





Source: Will County News

Early dismissal gives teachers time to design lessons tailored to individual needs

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

Young DI: Young School Principal Michael Szopinski facilitates a meeting with teachers, asking them to create lesson plans that provide students with options and choices regarding how they are going to learn and how they are going to show their learning.


For Immediate Release:

Jan. 13, 2016


Early dismissal gives teachers time to design lessons tailored to individual needs


Every child learns differently. Some absorb information verbally; others may need to read it aloud or discuss it in small groups.

Hadley DI: Hadley fifth-grade teachers discuss differentiated instruction and how they can tailor their lesson plans to meet the individual needs of students.

A good teacher will anticipate and respond to a variety of student needs, modifying the content of what they’re teaching as well as the delivery process.


In Homer School District 33C, teachers meet regularly to design lessons and units of instruction that include multiple options for taking in information. The method is called Differentiated Instruction (DI).

Homer DI: Math teachers at Homer Junior High School share ideas for differentiated instruction.


On Tuesday (Jan. 12), when students were dismissed an hour early for Teacher Articulation, teachers met with their building’s principal and differentiated instruction facilitator to plan lessons for the upcoming weeks.


“Differentiation is essential to meeting the needs of our Homer 33C learners,” said Kathleen Robinson, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction in Homer 33C.


“It allows us to provide equivalent learning activities that cater to the students’ strengths while ensuring all students meet the same learning objectives,” she added.

Schilling DI: Schilling School kindergarten teachers plan units of instruction using differentiated instruction

Teachers will continue to meet once a month throughout the school year to design units of instruction using differentiated instruction. Future meeting dates are: Feb. 9, March 15, April 19 and May 24.

Source: Will County News