↓ Archives ↓

Archive → October 11th, 2016

‘Madigan’ See the Movie


Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan is the nation’s longest-serving House speaker, and has been called “The King of Illinois.” 

Madigan became an Illinois legislator in 1971 and has been speaker of the House in Illinois for all but two years since 1983. 

Since Madigan first became Speaker, Illinois has had six different governors, more than 200 state senators and more than 500 state representatives.

“Madigan: Power. Privilege. Politics.” takes an in-depth look at the career of Illinois’ most powerful politician.

Interviewees include Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass, former Senate President Emil Jones, former House Speaker Lee Daniels, political commentator Rich Miller, state Rep. Ken Dunkin, political science professor Dick Simpson and Rob Blagojevich, brother of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. 

Ticket price includes popcorn and soda.

The first 100 attendees will also receive a Madigan t-shirt.

Doors open at 6:30 p.m.

Film begins at 7:00 p.m.

Source: Will County News

Homer 33C Girls Cross Country team headed to State

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:

Oct. 11, 2016


Girls Cross Country team headed to State


The Homer Junior High School girls cross country team is headed to State.

The team finished first at the IESA Sectional Meet on Saturday (Oct. 8), with one student athlete taking first overall with a time of 12.20.

“Congratulations to the team and coaches,” said Homer Athletic Director Amanda Monahan.


The team heads to Maxwell Park on Saturday (Oct. 15) to compete at the IESA State Meet. Race time is 12:30 p.m.


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


Source: Will County News

Global elites are getting ready to blame you for the coming financial crash

Global elites are getting ready to blame you for the coming financial crash


Stock market crashThose people that have any doubts about where the narrative is headed for global economic stability simply have not been paying attention lately.

As I pointed out in my pre-Brexit referendum article, Brexit: Global Trigger Event, Fake Out Or Something Else? the story being scripted by the globalists is one of the “failures of conservative principles.”  I predicted that the Brexit would pass based on this language used by international financiers and elites leading up to the vote, and I was correct.

The vast majority of analysts in the mainstream and in the alternative media refused to acknowledge the possibility that a successful Brexit actually works in favor of the globalists, because it provides them a perfect scapegoat for a financial crisis that has been broiling for years and is now ready to burst into flames.  I find still that many people simply will not consider the idea that a successful conservative resurgence is actually part of the plan for globalist institutions.  Many argue that the elites just don’t have that kind of pervasive control over the system, or that I am attributing “too much power and ability” to them.

I find this argument rather naive but also interesting, because many of the people that claim the elites do not have such influence were also the same people that argued before the Brexit that the elites would “never allow” the U.K. referendum to pass.  So, do they have extensive influence, or don’t they?  This kind of selective blindness to the game being played prevents a whole host of otherwise intelligent people from grasping reality.

These folks need to finally admit to themselves that they were half right; the globalists would not allow the passage of the Brexit, unless, a successful Brexit actually works in their favor.

In my post-Brexit analysis I said that the meme of bumbling and destructive conservatives and “populists” would continue into the U.S. election, and so far it would seem this is exactly the case. In numerous mainstream articles globalists have been openly telling us exactly what is about to happen.

I find that the same naivety that developed before and after the Brexit has also developed around the Trump campaign. Too many in the liberty movement will not entertain the idea that a Trump win is in the cards. Yet, the elites are using the same language in reference to the Trump campaign that they used before and after the Brexit.

Bloomberg’s latest report on the annual meetings of the IMF and World Bank showcase numerous warnings by the elites:

“The global economy has benefited tremendously from globalization and technological change,” the IMF’s top advisory panel said in a communique released on Saturday after meeting in Washington. “However, the outlook is increasingly threatened by inward-looking policies, including protectionism, and stalled reforms.”

“The IMF warned in its latest economic outlook that rising political tensions over open markets and free trade could undermine a recovery already lacking a growth engine.”

“In a rebuke to those advocating a turn away from trade, the members of the IMF panel redoubled their commitment to “maintain economic openness and reinvigorate global trade as a critical means to boost global growth.”

Barron’s reiterates the predictive programming, insinuating that aloss of faith in globalism and the financial elites will lead to disaster.

“Leaders gathered at the International Monetary Fund/World Bank annual meeting didn’t mention Donald Trump by name this week, but they warned the anti-trade and populist movements fueling his presidential campaign, as well as Brexit, could further slow already anemic economic growth.”

“…Populist movements have not fallen on deaf ears, with German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble noting during a panel on the global economy that: “More and more, people don’t trust their elites. They don’t trust their economic leaders, and they don’t trust their political leaders.”

I continue to hold to the position I always have — that Donald Trump is going to be allowed into the White House, and that this will be a prelude to economic crisis. The stage is being set for a grand finale to our ongoing financial collapse.  The great villain behind the whole disaster will be revealed, and we will be told that the villain is U.S.

By “us” I mean conservative movements in general, though, the mainstream media and globalist spokesmen refer to us more often today as “populists.”  Those people who think this brand of “conspiracy” is too far fetched because it requires an inordinate level of political and economic control have not really thought the situation through.

Fact — central banks and international financiers have already created the conditions necessary for economic instability.  Fact — these same elites have staved off a larger or more immediate collapse over the past eight years through the use of fiat stimulus measures, market rigging and the manipulation of public perception.  Fact — the elites can easily initiate an immediate collapse if they wish by simply refusing to prop up the system any longer.  Fact — the elites have showcased the ability to stifle conservative movements in the past through interference and co-option (Tea Party, anyone?).  Fact — they can also give conservative movements an opportunity to gain momentum by removing some of this interference.

The truth is, at this point globalists do not need expansive or intricate control over the system in order to cause a crisis or to place conservatives in the historical hot seat.  All they have to do is step aside and let the train wreck happen.  And, of course, they have to position themselves as prognosticators and saviors once the crisis event occurs.

The argument also arises that “people would never take the bait;” that the masses will not be fooled by the banking cabal into scapegoating conservatives for a crash the elites created.  One can only hope.  However, possession is nine-tenths of the law in the minds of many, and the mainstream has already conditioned the public with the notion that the mere presence of anti-globalist conservatives in positions of political authority will negatively affect market psychology.

Of course, this notion relies on the admission of certain truths. For example, the globalists would have to admit that the fiscal system they have held together is so tenuous and fraudulent that it depends solely on false public perception and false investor assumptions.  In order to blame conservatives for the destruction of the global economy, the elites will have to tell the truth about the frailty of the system before they can lie about who broke it.

This may not matter.  When people are facing national or international calamity with the potential to hurt them personally, critical thinking and logic tend to go out the window.

There is also the power of distraction to occupy the minds of the masses while a crisis is taking shape, and what could be more distracting than the Trump vs. Clinton U.S. election?  I have to say, I don’t think I have ever witnessed or seen a historical accounting of an election more psychotic than the election of 2016.  It is truly the most divisive event in over a century, and this is why I consistently compare it to the Brexit referendum.

The tone is very much the same, with citizens on the Left side of the political spectrum being lured into rallying in support of globalism as if it is a prerequisite to peace and harmony, while citizens on the Right side of the spectrum are portrayed as knuckle dragging isolationist barbarians hell-bent on urinating in the punch bowl and ruining everyone’s global prosperity party.

Brexit supporters were painted as older, selfish, potentially racist and out of touch with the changing times.  Brexit opponents were painted as young, educated and victimized by older generations taking away the supposed future benefits of globalism.

Trump supporters are labeled as older, mostly white-centric, uneducated and fearful of the changing times.  They just “don’t get” that it’s 2016.  Trump opponents are elevated as the academic and worldly class battling to prevent another Hitler.

During the lead up to the U.K. referendum, polls indicated a wide margin in favor of the anti-Brexit crowd and the assumption by almost everyone was that the Brexit would fail.

The lead up to the U.S. election is also rife with polls indicating in most cases a margin of victory for Clinton over Trump.  Of course, only a complete idiot would take polling numbers seriously in light of what happened during the Brexit.

The Brexit campaign witnessed what appeared to some to be an unrecoverable black swan event — the killing of British MP Jo Cox.  Almost everyone claimed that the murder of Cox by an apparently pro-Brexit assailant meant that the Brexit was doomed (I actually argued that the murder would be forgotten in a week and that the Brexit would pass anyway).

The Trump campaign has witnessed its own kind of “black swan” event with the release of recordings from eleven years ago in which Trump is heard making “lewd remarks” about women.  It is surprising to me how many conservatives (let alone liberals) have been declaring Trump’s candidacy effectively “over” due to the scandal.   These people are dupes.

Once again, I argue that the Trump tapes will be forgotten in a week and that they have no bearing whatsoever on the election.  They are nothing more than bread and circus.  Beyond the fact that really, almost no one cares what Trump said a decade ago, I argue that this election has already been decided.  I argue that the globalists wantTrump in office, just as they wanted the passage of the Brexit.  I argue that they need conservative movements to feel as though we have won, so that they can pull the rug out from under us in the near future.  I argue that we are being set up.

Again, the elites are openly telling us what is about to happen.  They are telling us that if “populists” (conservatives) gain political power, the system will effectively collapse.  To what extent is hard to say, but let’s assume that the situation will be ugly enough to influence the masses to reconsider the ideal of globalism as a possible solution.  The elites are fond of the Hegelian dialectic and the philosophy of “order out of chaos,” after all.

The only way to counter this developing lie is for liberty champions to first accept the idea that our political victories might be ultimately meaningless and that we are being allowed to take charge of a ship that is already sinking.  Only then can we distance ourselves from an exponential fiscal disaster by distancing ourselves from the narrative.

Perhaps I am wrong, and in November we see a dismal Trump performance and a Clinton victory.  But if we see a “surprise” Trump election win, just as we saw a surprise Brexit win, then it may be time to consider that the surface of this situation is not what it appears.

— Brandon Smith

Source: Will County News

New Law Bans Cars That Are NOT Electric

New Law Bans Cars That Are NOT Electric
Jeff Siegel
Photo By Jeff Siegel
Written Tuesday, October 11, 2016
It’s enough to make a libertarian squirm.

Actually, it’s enough to make any free-market advocate scream at the top of his lungs.

But none of that matters to Germany’s Bundesrat, which just passed a resolution to ban the sale of internal combustion vehicles.

Yes, you read that correctly: a complete ban on the sale of internal combustion vehicles.

The ban wouldn’t go into effect until 2030, but folks, that’s not that far off.

And as analyst Bertel Schmitt from Forbes pointed out, this goes far beyond Germany…

Germany’s Bundesrat is a legislative body representing the 16 states of Germany. On its own, the resolution has no legislative effect. EU-type approval is regulated on the EU level. However, German regulations traditionally have shaped EU and UNECE regulations.

Say what you want about “unity” amongst EU nations, but everybody knows that without Germany, the EU is sunk. Germany has the economic muscle to influence everything that happens in the EU, and everyone knows it.

So when Germany says it’s banning the sale of internal combustion vehicles, rest assured, the EU is banning the sale of internal combustion vehicles.

Expediting the Inevitable

While I may not be the kind of guy who likes the idea of the government banning the type of car you can drive, I am the kind of guy who knows an opportunity when he sees it.

Quite frankly, I couldn’t care less if the EU bans the sales of internal combustion vehicles. Internal combustion vehicles are on death’s door, anyway. In another 10 years, nearly every new passenger vehicle in EU showrooms will be electric.

This is just going to expedite the inevitable. And if you’re smart, you’ll take full advantage of this situation.

You see, in 2015, new vehicle registrations in the EU hit 12.6 million.

By 2030, that number will likely be considerably less, thanks to the growth in car-sharing services, an increase in more walkable and bikeable communities, and an expansion of more efficient public transportation. These alternatives to car ownership could end up snatching as much as 30% of the passenger vehicle market in the EU.

That being said, that still leaves about 8.8 million new passenger vehicle sales in 2030. With all of those being electric (because hydrogen fuel cell adoption will still be a myth in 2030), that’s a very big deal. And it doesn’t stop with the EU.

18 Million Electric Cars

According to a report from the Argonne National Laboratory, by 2030, electric cars will make up 58% of the light vehicle market in the U.S.

In 2015, U.S. consumers bought 17.5 million cars and light trucks. Even if the U.S. market doesn’t ever grow again and instead stays static at 17.5 million, we’re looking at more than 10 million cars being electrified by 2030.

So just with the EU and U.S. combined, by 2030, the market for electric cars could exceed 18 million cars. That’s going to require a lot of lithium-ion batteries and a lot of lithium. Do you have any idea what that’ll do to the price of lithium along the way?

I’m not saying lithium-ion batteries are going to be the batteries of choice in 2030, but they’re a lock for at least the next 10 to 15 years. My friend, only a fool would not have some exposure to the lithium space right now.

Certainly I have skin in the lithium game, and I strongly recommend you do the same, either through public markets by buying some of these stocks or through private deals, which are typically only available to accredited investors. If you are an accredited investor, here’s a group you can join that will allow you access to all kinds of private deals, including a few in the electric vehicle space.

Bottom line: Electric vehicles are absolutely, 100% the future of the automobile industry. And the time to strike is now.

To a new way of life and a new generation of wealth…

Jeff Siegel Signature

Jeff Siegel

Source: Will County News

Majority of Americans still think gov’t encroaching too much on individuals, businesses

Gallup: Majority of Americans still think gov’t encroaching too much on individuals, businesses


Conservatism still wins with the American people — even if conservatives can’t seem to make the sale with them in recent years. According to the latest poll from Gallup, a solid majority of US adults think government tries to do too much that should be left to individuals and the private sector. The trend has remained steady for the last quarter-century, with one exception:

One of the fundamental questions that have divided the U.S. this election year — and, in fact, since its founding 240 years ago — concerns the appropriate role of the federal government. A new update of a longstanding Gallup trend shows that Americans continue to favor a smaller role for government, with 54% saying the government is attempting to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses, and 41% saying it should do more to solve the country’s problems.

With a few exceptions, the current results are typical of Americans’ responses since 1992. One exception was in late 1992 and early 1993 as Bill Clinton campaigned for and took over the presidency. At that time, Americans were highly concerned about the economy. The second exception occurred in October 2001, just after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, when Americans were focused on the government’s response to the most significant domestic terrorist attack in the country’s history. Otherwise, across more than 40 surveys over 25 years, including the most recent Sept. 7-11 update, the public has tilted by at least a small margin toward believing that the government is trying to do too much.

With this result, why can’t Republicans win with conservatives at the top of the GOP presidential ticket? Perhaps we’ll know that when Republicans actually put a conservative at the top of the ticket. Given the consistent response from the electorate over the last 25 years, it’s remarkable that the one party most oriented toward small-government conservatism has not been able to find a way to take advantage of this consensus.

One interesting note from Gallup’s historical chart: the era of big government may not be over, but it’s not making a popular comeback in the era of Hope and Change, either. Thanks certainly to the Great Recession and the financial-sector crisis of 2008, the entirety of George W. Bush’s administration showed narrower results on this question than Gallup got in Barack Obama’s:


The gaps in the Obama era didn’t get as wide as during the Clinton era — or at least not for a sustained period — but the gaps definitely grew almost immediately after Obama took office. Interestingly, the peak gap got reached before the disastrous rollout of ObamaCare, and it narrowed a bit after the implementation. Either way, this shows that the resurrection of popular big-government progressivism might be greatly exaggerated.

It has been remarkably stable for the past three years, which might seem a bit surprising given the enthusiastic revival of populism in both parties. Populism is, at its base, a leveraging of government authority to balance economic and political power on the basis of class. And yet we’re seeing a healthy level of support for small-government conservatism and no real upward momentum for big government. That’s a mission failure for Obama, and one that might have had a real impact on the 2016 race … if Republicans had nominated a small-government conservative.

Source: Will County News