↓ Archives ↓

Archive → April 26th, 2016

The Edgar County Watch Dogs May 5th at 7:00 pm Americans for Prosperity Lockport Office

The Edgar County Watch Dogs
May 5th at 7:00 pm

AFP Office at 924 N. State Street, Lockport

The Edgar County Watch Dogs will be speaking to us on how to be citizens watch dogs.  They will explain how to understand local governments spending, and how to uncover improper spending in our communities.  And most importantly how to get corrupt politicians out of office.

For more information about the Edgar County Watch Dogs:

Visit Them At:

Source: Will County News

Comparing Argentina And The United States/ Its time to wake up

MAY 15, 2013 @ 09:57 AM   Forbes

Many observers have pondered if the United States is following the same troubled path as Argentina.  In the 1940s, Argentina’s Juan Domingo Perón used government agencies for political gain and created a popular form of fascism called Perónism. In the United States, the recent revelation of the Internal Revenue Service targeting political enemies is a bad omen. Are we on an Argentinean course?

Juan Domingo Perón with presidential sash

The road to decay in my native country, Argentina, began with the implementation of one of the most powerful collectivist doctrines of the 20th century: fascism. The Labour Charter of 1927 –  promulgated by Italy’s Grand Council of Fascism under Mussolini – is a guiding document of this doctrine and provides for government-based economic management. This same document recommends government provision of healthcare and unemployment insurance. Sound familiar?

Since adopting its own brand of fascism, “Justicialismo,” Argentina began to fall in world economic rankings.

  • In 1930, Argentina’s gold reserves ranked 6th. After the “experts” took over the central bank, reserves fell to 9th in 1948 (with $700 million), 16th during 1950-54 (with $530 million), and 28th during 1960-1964 (with $290 million).
  • The Argentine central bank, created in 1935, was at first a private corporation. Its president lasted longer (seven years) than the president of the country, and it had strict limits for government debt purchases and even had foreign bankers on its board. It became a government entity in 1946. 
  • When Perón assumed power shortly thereafter, he hastily expanded the role of government, relaxed central banking rules and used the bank to facilitate his statist policies. In just 10 years, the peso went from 4.05 per U.S. dollar to 18 in 1955 (and later peaked at 36 that same year). After Perón’s rule, Argentina further devalued its currency to 400 pesos per U.S. dollar by 1970.

    Bipartisanship in bad policy-making can be especially damaging. Just as some of President Obama’s interventionist monetary policies were preceded by similar Bush administration policies, some of Perón’s policies were similarly foreshadowed: “Already before we reached power, we started to reform, with the approval and collaboration of the previous de facto regime,” said the populist.

    Perón was removed from power in 1955 but his policies lived on.  The “Liberating Revolution” claimed it was leading an effort to return to the free-market system dictated by the Argentine Constitution of 1853.  But Argentines chose an interventionist, Raúl Prebisch, as minister.

    Inflationary policies and political use of the monetary regulatory authority, especially after Perón’s first presidency, devastated the economic culture and rule of law of Argentina. In the United States, the Fed does not have all the powers delineated by Perón, and has not caused as much destruction as the Argentine central bank, but the process has been similar and more gradual. The U.S. dollar buys less than 10 percent of what it did in 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created, the debt limit increases regularly—thus stimulating further debt monetization—and monetary authorities have increased their arbitrary interventions.

    Under Perón, government agencies gradually got involved in all areas of the economy.  We see a similar pattern in the United States–many sectors of the economy now depend on control, encouragement, or direct management. Obamacare is the best example; it is Perónism or corporatism on steroids.

    There are similarities beyond the economic realm. Unlike other populist leaders, such as Hitler and Mussolini, Perón did not have belligerent imperialist ambitions. The same can be said about President Obama.  His conservative critics argue that he wants to reduce U.S. influence around the world.  Moreover, Perón shunned the Argentine founding fathers who favored the free society. Likewise, President Obama is not prone to quoting Madison, Washington, or Jefferson.

    But some major differences between cultures still exist, such as the “cult of the leader,” attacking mediating institutions (e.g., Catholic associations and the press), and appealing to the left as well as the right.  Regarding the latter, Peron achieved vast influence over most of the three main components of fascism: labor unions, business corporations, and government. It’s not likely that a U.S. leader will gain control of all three of these in the near future.  During the beginning of the Obama administration it looked as though much of the business world was on board, but if there was ever a honeymoon, it didn’t last long. The Chamber of Commerce, for example, voiced its opposition during the middle of Obama’s first term, and continues to voice its criticism on several fronts.

    Other differences, so far, are:

    • The use of government funds for partisan efforts in Argentina is much worse than in the United States.
    • The U.S. government is reluctant to directly attack capitalism.  Interventions are positioned as “going against capitalism to save capitalism.”
    • In the United States, there is greater understanding of the dangers of protectionist and nationalist economic policies.
    •  There is stronger support for the rule of law in the United States. The control of the judiciary by the Argentine government is reaching tyrannical levels.

    A major source of hope in the United States is the strength and variety in governments among the 50 states and the richness of our civil society. Economic power is more diffused in the United Statesand some of it, as I noted in a recent column, is moving south to more conservative states. State spending and regulation has grown, but the federal government does not yet have the power to make the states follow all of its dictates and whims.

    Pessimists may argue that the stage is set for an ambitious U.S. president, like it was for Perón, to make the majority of the economy dependent on government.  From the year before Perón assumed power and to the end of his rule (1945-1955), total spending by the central government averaged 11% of GNP; this compares with 24% in the United States today. Argentine conservatives created regulatory agencies thinking they would be used for the common good.  Likewise, U.S. conservatives have expanded government and regulations. The regulatory state is much larger today in the United States than in old Perónist Argentina. As with government spending, it can be used to control, encourage, or discourage business. Employed by both countries, excessive regulation is a more secretive means of picking winners and losers, which creates more opportunity for corruption. Perón understood that government spending and regulation could be used as tools of power to reward friends and punish enemies. He did it, and he ruined the Argentine dream.

    What we’re seeing in many of today’s U.S. agencies, including the politicization of the IRS, demonstrates that the United States is not immune to the Argentine disease.  Indeed, if we fail to preserve the institutions of the republic, the American dream will be in grave danger.


Source: Will County News

Homer 33C Junior High recognizes student achievement, accomplishments

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:

April 26, 20156


Homer Junior High recognizes student achievement, accomplishments


Homer Junior High students, staff and parents have a lot to be proud of — both academically and athletically.


On Wednesday (April 20), the school recognized students for their achievements in the classrooms, on the athletic fields and in the field of art and music during a school assembly.

“We want to acknowledge the great things going on here at Homer Junior High,” said Principal Troy Mitchell, who provided students and staff with a “small snapshot” of accomplishments.


Among those recognized were the school’s Geography Bee Winner, History Club state qualifier, Spelling Bee winner, Carnegie Hall performers and student athletes who qualified for state.


Also honored were the school’s mission statement contest winner, its Division I Show Choir, Illinois Music Education Association (ILMEA) qualifiers, Reader Leaders and Math March Madness Champions.


Will County Regional Superintendent Shawn Walsh joined the celebration and congratulated all of the students for their achievements — especially the school’s Spelling Bee winner who won the Will County Spelling Bee and is headed to Washington, D.C. this May to compete in the Scripps National Spelling Bee.


It’s the third time in four years that a Homer Junior High student has won the Will County Bee.


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


Source: Will County News

Reading, Writing and Guns

Reading, Writing and Guns
David A. Lombardo
Go Aggies! The anti-personal protection cabal must be having a collective paroxysm over Texas A&M giving the green light for students to carry concealed on campus. The bill, which was introduced in 2015, does have some restrictions including child-care facilities, places for student disciplinary actions and sporting events. All things considered, it’s a good win. The relaxed policy comes as state legislators passed a law giving campuses more leeway in determining carry rights for gun owners.
In a Fort Worth Star-Telegram interview, Chancellor John Sharp said, “Do I trust my students, faculty and staff to work and live responsibly under the same laws at the university as they do at home? Of course I do.”
Texas’ new campus carry law goes into effect statewide August 1st, in time for the new academic year. It doesn’t mandate all institutes must allow concealed carry but rather it allows them individually to make the decision locally whether or not to allow concealed carry and set whatever limitations they wish on where students may carry concealed. Lest you think this an anomaly, it is slowly gaining momentum across the country.
The 2015 victory in Texas wasn’t an isolated incident by a long shot. In 2014 at least 14 states introduced similar legislation, and in 2013 at least 19 states introduced legislation to allow concealed carry on campus. Two bills survived: one in Kansas that allows concealed carry generally and one in Arkansas that allows faculty to carry. The Kansas legislation creates a provision that colleges and universities cannot prohibit concealed carry unless a building has “adequate security measures.” The Arkansas bill allows faculty to carry, unless the governing board adopts a policy that expressly disallows faculty to carry.
Currently there are 19 states that ban carrying a concealed weapon on a college campus which-surprise surprise-includes Illinois. Nine states have some provision for campus concealed carry. They include: Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah, Texas and Wisconsin. All the remaining states but one leave the decision to ban or allow concealed carry weapons on campus up to the institution itself; Utah remains the only state to have a statute specifically naming public colleges and universities as public entities that do not have the authority to ban concealed carry, and thus, all 10 public institutions in Utah allow concealed weapons on their property.
Of course the anti-personal protection cabal forecasts dire results, as always. They’re marching out the same old, tired nonsense they always say. For the record, I’m still looking for the following predictions by Mayor Rahm Emanuel and the recently-departed Superintendent of Police Garry McCarthy:
Where in Chicago is blood running in the streets because we got concealed carry?
Can you tell me where someone shot another person over a parking space or, perhaps more importantly, over a piece of lawn furniture holding a parking space?
Can you think of a single instance where a concealed carry holder got into a shootout in a store and killed a bunch of people accidentally?
And has there been even one case in Chicago in which a cop killed a concealed carry holder by accident?
Of course not, because when you give law-abiding John Q. Public the right to carry a concealed firearm, John Q. rises to the occasion, and the proof is in the pudding. The 500-pound gorilla in the concealed carry permit game is Florida. Since 1987 the state of Florida has issued 2.5 million concealed-carry permits. Of those, only 168 persons out of 2.5 million have committed firearms-related crimes, or .00672 percent. Compare that to a three-year study showing .02 percent of slightly more than 683,000 full-time law enforcement officers have committed a firearm-related violation. The simple fact is this: guns save lives, and gun owners take the responsibility very seriously no matter where they are or what they’re doing.

Source: Will County News