↓ Archives ↓

Archive → April, 2016

How Much Should a Government Employee Make?

Editors Note:

Staff expects raises each year as well as more money for adding responsibility. Each non-union employee seems to feel they need more because they do more or because they have done a good job for a long time. There is a point where these jobs can be filled by Qualified people for less money. Put an add in the paper for a government job with the best benefits and medical and see how long it takes before you need to stop taking applications. Public Sector Unions have it even better. Who represents the citizen and what they can afford in taxes.

Point is that everyone in government for the most part makes more than the private sector when the total package is considered.

Raises are paid by taxpayers. Let the taxpayer decide.

How Much Should a Government Employee Make?


On his inaugural spin on the Sunday talk show circuit, Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts called for a freeze on federal-employee pay, which he said was twice that of private-sector counterparts. It was an issue he campaigned on as a way to bring government spending under control. “Lavish pay and benefit packages have unfortunately become a way of life for public employees,” he said at an event in January. “It’s time to bring fiscal sanity to Washington. I support a temporary freeze on federal wages until the Congress devises a plan to control spending and debt.”

The obsession with government-employee pay is surfacing at the state and city levels as well. Colorado Springs is cutting services in the face of mounting budget deficits. Tax increases can only be approved by referendum, and residents recently voted one down. In November, a city councilman proposed reducing employee pay. A local business leader named Stephen Bartolin has criticized a city employee pay and benefits package that he said amounted to more than $80,000 a person, compared to the mere $24,000 Bartolin pays his employees. It’s not clear if the positions are comparable — he runs a resort and benefits from being able to hire seasonal and part-time employees. Now the idea that Colorado Springs pays its city employees too well has emerged as the “other side” in the debate. The vice mayor has stepped up to defend the city pay as in line with that of other municipalities.

The hand-wringing over how much government employees are paid is perennial. It trades on the image of a nameless bureaucrat stamping papers in an office bloated with redundant, union-protected workers who do very little work for great pay and too many holidays. That competency and talent are as important in the public sphere — remember Michael Brown at FEMA? — as they are in the private sector is often forgotten. Because the government employs a wide-range of workers, wholesale comparisons between government and private-sector workers are often unfair. Moreover, they’re usually not even accurate.

Which is why PolitiFact was surprised by Scott Brown’s claims, which after fact-checking, proved false. Brown used Cato Institute numbers that put the average federal employee’s salary at $79,197, compared to $50,028 in the private sector. It’s easy to tell right away that those salaries aren’t double, contrary to Brown’s claim on This Week on Jan. 31, but PolitiFact did even more digging.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers put average federal wages at $68,740, while private-sector wages averaged out at $42,270. The disparity is still there, in part because the nation’s overall work force skews more toward blue-collar jobs than does the federal government. But $68,000 sounds less “lavish” than “respectable.” Whether a worker makes more or less in the public sphere depends a lot on what job he or she is doing: Nurses make more, and petroleum engineers make less. Cashiers in government jobs make a lot more, $34,000, than the $18,000 of their private-sector counterparts.

But where can anyone easily live on $18,000 a year? It’s below the federal poverty line for a family of three, and even a two-wage-earner household, with both adults making that salary, would be struggling well below the national median household income of $50,000. Conservatives argue that, especially in a bad economy, everyone should suffer equally. But why should we advocate anyone suffering at all?

Morgan Warstler recently posted on Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government blog that, to “fix” the budget, the government should cut federal employee wages by 20 percent because, “it is time for government workers to share our pain and get their interests aligned with ours.” He also argues, without explanation, that government employees would eventually make more money as a result. Presumably he means they’ll make more when they can snag the private-sector jobs created when savings from government wage cuts go to tax credits for businesses. So, he seems to simultaneously argue that federal employees are paid too well and that those employees would ultimately make more in the private sector. “Real jobs,” he calls them, “the kind that don’t have the dirty taint of government on them.”

Which is really the point; conservatives don’t believe the government should have many employees at all. That argument might be picking up steam because it’s coupled with rhetoric that the government is expanding — with the stimulus, bank bailouts, and health reform. It also probably helps that much of the anti-government rhetoric in the Republican Party is now aimed at voters in the South, where many of the states are among the nation’s poorest and median incomes fall below the national average.

So what about Warstler’s claim that cutting federal-employee wages by 20 percent would save the government so much money? (Incidentally, I don’t know of any work force that would tolerate an overnight cut in the wages they agreed to work at by one-fifth.) Total compensation in the 2011 budget for employees is about $457 billion, including military personnel and benefits, and represents about 12 percent of the budget. It’s clearly not where the bulk of our money is going; that would be defense spending.

And while conservatives like to gripe that government jobs don’t inspire innovation in their workers, they don’t like to point out how many private-sector jobs are spurred by government spending. It’s hard to ignore that the Department of Defense gives a lot of money to Lockheed Martin, the third largest employer in Colorado Springs. So, government employees — at the city or federal level — are problematic, but employees whose jobs would not exist without government money are fine.

The hostility to government workers also fits into a larger conservative narrative that arose during the bank bailouts of Obama as a socialist who just wanted to spread the wealth. Letting the banks fail would have caused a lot of pain to the working class, which might have lost paychecks along with tax dollars, but that’s beside the point for conservatives. Loss is already socialized, but wealth can’t be. The wealthiest, of course, always deserve what they earn. The federal government — with its steady pay structure, good benefits, and somewhat even playing field for promotions — runs counter to the Republican idea that a system in which the wealthiest rise leaving the lowest earners behind is better for all.

Source: Will County News

$1,000 Gun Tax Pushed as “Role Model” for States

$1,000 Gun Tax Pushed as “Role Model” for States

Posted by John Kartch on Monday, April 18th, 2016, 12:51 PM

Steep gun tax concept endorsed by Hillary Clinton in 1993 beginning to take hold

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A $1,000 per gun tax should serve as a “role model” for states, according to the governor of the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands, which imposed the $1,000 gun tax earlier this month. An idea first endorsed by Hillary Clinton in 1993, steep gun taxes have now taken hold in Cook County, Ill. the city of Seattle, and now a U.S. territory.

As reported by the Saipan Tribune:

The administration of Gov. Ralph DLG Torres defended the CNMI’s new gun control laws on Friday as a law that could be “a role model” for other U.S. states and jurisdictions facing seemingly uncontrolled and continued gun violence.

The administration was responding to queries regarding its position on recent reports that the a legal challenge to the new law, Public law 19-42, was likely, particularly over a provision that assesses a $1,000 excise tax on pistols.

The threat of such a tax serving as a role model for other politicians to impose is not an idle one. Consider the following:

Seattle Gun and Ammunition Tax: On Jan. 1, 2016, Seattle’s $25 per gun tax took effect, as did a two cent to five cent tax per round of ammunition. The new taxes have already forced at least one major gun dealer to leave the city.

Cook County, Ill. Gun and Ammunition Tax: On June 1, 2016, Cook County’s new ammunition tax takes effect, at a rate of one cent to five cents per round of ammunition. The ammo tax comes on top of the existing gun tax regime of $25 per gun.

Hillary Clinton’s 25% Gun Tax Endorsement: In passionate testimony to the Senate Finance Committee in 1993, Hillary Clinton gave her strong personal endorsement to a new national 25% sales tax on guns and endorsed a steep increase in the gun dealer fee, to $2,500. “I am speaking personally, but I feel very strongly about that,” said Clinton at the conclusion of her endorsement.

“The Left is now seeking to tax guns out of existence,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “The Second Amendment makes it difficult to legally ban guns, but Hillary has led the way to explaining you can achieve the same thing with high taxes.”

In newly released footage from Americans for Tax Reform, Clinton is shown nodding enthusiastically as she endorsed the 25% gun tax and as legal gun dealers were described as “purveyors of violence.”

Further details are available at ATR’s dedicated website, www.HighTaxHillary.com

Read more: http://www.atr.org/1000-gun-tax-pushed-role-model-states#ixzz46flyDLvF
Follow us: @taxreformer on Twitter

Source: Will County News

Marques Gaines case is reason to reflect: Are we guilty of ‘bystander effect’?

By: Dan Proft

What would you have done early on that February morning had you come upon an unconscious Marques Gaines lying facedown on State Street at a busy Chicago intersection?

Would you have come to Gaines’ aid? Be honest.

Research suggests that only 1 in 55 of us would have.

No one assisted the 32-year-old man after he was punched unconscious and left prone on the street. Surveillance video released in mid-April showed more than a dozen people nearby failing to come to his aid. At least one person, reportedly an employee of the 7-Eleven on the corner, called 911. But no one outside even bothered to shield Gaines from traffic, though two predators swooped in to pick the injured man’s pockets. Eventually Gaines was accidentally run over by a taxi, and he died after finally being taken to a hospital.

Cornell University sociologists recently released a study that found only 1 in 39 Americans would respond to assist their fellow man in a health emergency. But add race as a factor (Gaines was black) and the research is even more alarming. The likely response rate to help a black person with a health emergency was 1 in 55, compared with 1 in 24 for a white person in dire straits.

Much has been written about the so-called “bystander effect” in the wake of the release of the video detailing Gaines’ unnecessary death.

We rationalize our own behavior. We want to absolve ourselves and blame the proprietor of the 7-Eleven.

We are good people, we think to ourselves. If not for some group psychosis, of course we would render aid to a man in need.

In our therapeutic culture, there is always a ready-made psychological explanation for man’s inhumanity to man so any consideration of our moral depredation may be avoided.

The two scavengers who scurried to rob Gaines while he was out cold are not vile, we tell ourselves. They are victims of economic injustice that pushed them into a life of picking at the bones of their brethren. We must not assign opprobrium, we must enact a $15 minimum wage.

And the post-moral rationalizations similarly abound for those who blithely meandered past Gaines finding nothing out of the ordinary with a young man lying facedown in the middle of State Street.

I could get attacked, too, we think. I don’t want to expose myself to any legal liability by helping.

I am not a medical professional. I didn’t want to do more harm than good, we assert, ignoring that it doesn’t take a medical professional to call 911 or to stand by until first responders arrive, or to enlist others to rally assistance.

I pay taxes so that other people will respond to such situations. I gave at the office. The list goes on.

In America today, we are much more content to be our brother’s sugar daddy than we are his keeper.

Gaines was punched. He was robbed. He was run over. There were three opportunities to prevent his death and many onlookers present to seize them.

None did.

This is not a new phenomenon. Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death in New York in 1964 while residents who heard her cries for help did nothing. They didn’t want to get involved either.

In our atomized society, we are encouraged to live autonomous lives in which the only responsibility we owe anyone is to live “my truth.”

Your truth says you help someone in distress, my truth says I don’t.

When we conclude those views are morally equivalent, social mores disappear, the bonds that hold civil society together fray, good Samaritans vanish and Marques Gaines is roadkill.

Dan Proft is a co-founder of the Illinois Opportunity Project and morning drive talk show host on WIND-AM 560.



Source: Will County News

Homer 33C 8th graders explore Land of Lincoln

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, 2016


8th graders explore Land of Lincoln


Homer Junior High School eighth-graders were in Springfield recently, following in the footsteps of President Abraham Lincoln.


Students had an opportunity to visit the Old State Capitol where Lincoln served as a State Legislator, tour the home in which he raised his family, see the building that housed his law offices with partner William Herndon and stand at the train depot from which he left Springfield for the 1861 inauguration.


“The annual 8th grade field trip provides students with a fun, educational way to learn about Illinois history, especially about the great emancipator, President Abraham Lincoln,” said Karen Norville, who organized this year’s trip.


Students even have a chance to experience Illinois government in action. This year, for example, a few student groups watched as the Illinois Senate passed Senate Bill 2059, a stop-gap funding bill to help universities, colleges and community colleges remain operational through September.


The trip was optional for all Homer Junior High School eighth-graders, giving them an opportunity to visit the Land of Lincoln


In addition to seeing Lincoln’s old neighborhood, students visited the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Museum, the New State Capitol and Lincoln’s Tomb.


Participants paid $99 for the day-long motorcoach tour on April 22. Several parents served as chaperones while a professional tour director served as the guide.


Lincoln lived in Springfield for 24 years, passing (in his own words) “from a young to an old man.”


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


Source: Will County News

Adopt-a-Firefighter program begins in Homer 33C

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

01: Ryan Nolan, a firefighter and paramedic with the Homer Township Fire Protection District, introduces himself to a second-grade class at Schilling School.


For Immediate Release:

April 26, 2016


Adopt-a-Firefighter program begins in Homer 33C


Students in Dorene Jonelis’ second-grade class made a new friend recently at Schilling School.

Ryan Nolan, a firefighter and paramedic with the Homer Township Fire Protection District, stopped by their classroom April 22 to introduce himself and talk to students about thunderstorm safety as well as how to locate fire exits.

It’s all part of a community partnership between the school district and the Homer Township Fire Protection District to acquaint students with emergency personnel while presenting various life-safety education topics.

“The goal is to further enhance our delivery of life–safety education to the community,” said Deputy Fire Marshal Dave Bricker, who accompanied Nolan on his first visit to Schilling School.

Firefighters plan to conduct five visits during the school year to review everything from expanded fire safety messages to bike and pool safety to severe weather preparedness.

The program is being piloted at Schilling School this year and will be expanded to include Young School in the future.

During his first visit to Jonelis’ classroom, Nolan reviewed EXIT signs and how students should look for them when they need help finding their way out of a building.

He also reviewed what to do when a thunderstorm occurs while they’re outdoors.

“If you hear the sound of thunder, go to a safe place immediately,” he told students. “The best place to go is a sturdy building. Avoid sheds, picnic areas, baseball dugouts and bleachers.”

Each student was sent home with a Thunderstorm Safety information packet to share with their families.


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


Source: Will County News

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

Register Immigrants to add to Democrat Votes

Obama Allots $19 Mil to Register Immigrant Voters

APRIL 18, 2016

A year after President Obama launched his Task Force on New Americans the administration is injecting it with a $19 million infusion so it can achieve its key initiative of registering new voters that will likely support Democrats in the upcoming election. Officially, this is being described as enhancing pathways to naturalization by offering immigrants free citizenship instruction, English, U.S. history and civics courses. The cash is being distributed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Homeland Security agency that oversees lawful immigration, and the obvious goal is to register more immigrant voters because they tend to be Democrat.

Otherwise a Democrat commander-in-chief and his open-borders Domestic Policy Director wouldn’t be operating such a costly project. Judicial Watch wrote about the new task force last April, reporting that its chair is none other than Cecilia Muñoz, the former vice president of the powerful open borders group National Council of La Raza (NCLR). Obama recruited Muñoz to be White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs then promoted her to the more powerful and prestigious post of Domestic Policy Director. That gives her tremendous influence as the president’s top adviser on domestic issues as well as the White House official in charge of coordinating and supervising the execution of domestic policy. As head of the Task Force on New Americans Muñoz recruited like-minded leaders from various agencies—including the departments of Homeland Security, Justice, State, Education, Transportation and Health—to brainstorm about ways to empower immigrants.

Executing this mission will cost American taxpayers a chunk of change to provide immigrants and refugees with free “citizenship preparation” programs the administration claims will “strengthen civic, economic and linguistic integration” and “build strong and welcoming communities.” The allocation was announced this month by USCIS, which has dedicated large sums over the years to similar causes. The money usually goes to various leftist groups that help lawful permanent residents prepare for naturalization. In fiscal year 2016, however, the agency is recruiting new groups by offering them a piece of the multi-million-dollar pie. “We intend to award about $1 million to first-time recipients in the Citizenship and Integration Grant Program for fiscal year 2016,” the agency’s grant announcement states. “If you represent one of these organizations, or know of an interested organization, we strongly encourage that organization to consider applying. Additionally, another $9 million will fund programs that provide both citizenship instruction and instruction and naturalization application services.”

The administration brags about spending millions in recent years to support the quality work of organizations that play a vital role in helping residents prepare for naturalization, but seems to acknowledge this year is special and therefore more money will be dedicated to the cause. Read between the lines; presidential election. The extra cash “will help nonprofits establish new citizenship instruction programs or expand the quality and reach of existing ones,” the agency writes. “Examples of eligible organizations include private, nonprofit organizations such as civic, community and faith-based organizations; adult education organizations; and volunteer and literacy organizations. A separate funding opportunity will award approximately $9 million to public or nonprofit organizations that prepare permanent residents for citizenship by offering both citizenship instruction and naturalization application services.”

This is only a small part of the new task force’s mission. Practically every federal agency will participate in this effort by contributing resources and creating programs to help immigrants. For example the Department of Labor (DOL) will implement “new workforce programs” for the “new Americans” and the Department of Education will promote “funding opportunities” to assure that the immigrants “are provided the tools they need to succeed.” The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will collaborate with other agencies to release a career and credentialing toolkit on “immigrant-focused career-pathways programs.” The Department of Justice (DOJ) and USCIS will make sure the new Americans have worker rights and protections, the task force says, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) will launch a two-year pilot to assure that non English speakers have “meaningful access to housing programs” subsidized by American taxpayers.

Source: Will County News