↓ Archives ↓

Archive → December 1st, 2017

Cities across Illinois feeling pension squeeze

Cities across Illinois feeling pension squeeze

  • By Cole Lauterbach and Greg Bishop | Illinois News Network
FILE - Normal, Illinois
The historic Normal Theater in Normal, Illinois.

Willjay | Wikimedia Commons


A growing number of cities across Illinois are cutting services or hiking property taxes in the face of growing pension costs.

This is the time of year when many municipalities in Illinois are putting the finishing touches on their budgets for the coming year. A number of them are falling short on funds because of their growing pension bills. City of Normal officials blame their latest property tax hike squarely on rising pension costs. Palatine officials are debating a tax hike for the same reason.

Ted Dabrowski, president of the financial watchdog Wirepoints, predicts that this is just the tip of the iceberg.

“You’re going to start to see some of these cities go under,” he said.

Some of these cash-strapped cities, Dabrowski said, will eventually become insolvent without some ability to restructure their debt via bankruptcy.

“Without it, you’re going to see more policemen get fired,” he said. “You’re going to see more firemen get cut. You’re going to see more ambulance services get cut.”

The city of Mattoon announced this summer that it will be forced to scuttle its ambulances in April after receiving pension bills that are more than half a million dollars higher than they were last year. City Administrator Kyle Gill said service cuts are a last resort, but the city has no choice.

“Pension costs have climbed so high that it’s become unsustainable,” he said.

The city can’t mimic the longstanding habit of the Illinois General Assembly and short its annual pension obligations.

“The unions can file with the comptroller to hold any money that we would receive from state-shared revenues,” Gill said.

Springfield Budget Director Bill McCarty says the capital city’s growing pension costs are beginning to cut into services.

“It’s going to require us to reduce other services just to meet our pension obligations,” he said.

In the past, McCarty said, the city was able to take the excess property tax money that wasn’t spent paying pensions and put it toward things like library services. This year, Springfield will have to spend money that was previously earmarked for services and put it into paying legacy pension contributions.

Source: Will County News

Government as golden calf

Government as golden calf


Golden calf

Last Sunday, I attended church to worship the Lord — or so I thought.

Mea culpa: I’d forgotten it was the weekend of Veterans’ Day. Ergo, we worshiped the American government and its hired killers instead. The pastor asked all vets to stand while the congregation, which supposedly follows the Prince of Peace, vigorously applauded them. “Thank you for your service,” a man down the pew from me hollered. But isn’t such gratitude backwards? Shouldn’t vets be thanking us? After all, our money fed, housed and clothed them and their dependents.

I frequent this church when I’m visiting family in its “economically depressed, rural [area].” The parishioners are precisely the sort of population on which government cynically preys: first, politicians and bureaucrats destroy prosperity with taxes, licensing laws and endless regulations; then, they dangle such incentives as “free” travel (i.e., paid for by others) and incredibly generous bennies (also paid for by us) before kids whose opportunities they’ve annihilated. Voila: cannon fodder! You might think said fodder would despise the State and its enforcers in the military. But based on what I witnessed Sunday, they and their families are too busy hugging the chains that bind them to harbor any resentment.

Much of the congregation cherishes ties to the military. Each time I’ve visited, I’ve marveled at a large poster with photographs of “active service members” and a plea to “pray for them” emblazoned across the top. Oh, I do, for sure: I beseech God to convict them for agreeing to slaughter, plunder and rape in aggressive wars of empire. However much they may wish otherwise, the Feds’ agenda does not nullify the Ten Commandments.

After slavering over the vets, everyone but yours truly rose to pledge their loyalties not to Jesus Christ but to the American flag “and the nation for which it stands.” I hoped that none of the devout, Bible-believing Christians reciting an avowed socialist’s sentiments knew the purpose and history of Francis Bellamy’s Satanic words. Ignorance is damnable but not as much so as informed support of communism.

When they finished promising the Feds their allegiance, they did the same to the Christian flag (I guess no one recalled the Lord’s warning against serving two masters) and then to the Bible. These good Baptists would dismiss as “way too Roman Catholic” the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, if they’ve even heard of them. Yet they blithely drag nationalism and its “Christian” imitations into their service.

Alas, this assembly is far from unique. It is the rare congregation now that doesn’t promote rabid nationalism, which they mistake for patriotism, ahead of godliness.

Meanwhile, conservatives bewail the loss of the culture wars, the decline of the family and America’s horrific degeneracy. But should we expect anything less, given the Church’s idolatry of the State? Like the Christians at Ephesus, modern believers have left their first love to genuflect at government’s feet.

How far we’ve fallen from the early Christian martyrs! These saints suffered gruesome deaths rather than bow to the Roman Emperor as a god. They set examples all of us should emulate: when their government commanded them to violate Scripture and venerate another deity in addition to Jesus Christ, they refused.

Ditto for believers living under the Nazis’ regime. We cheer Corrie ten Boom and her family or Dietrich Bonhoeffer for defying politicians to save lives.When earthly rulers contradicted Heavenly precepts, these heroes proclaimed with Peter and the apostles, “We ought to obey God rather than men.”

To their eternal shame, though, American Christians act as if that verse reads, “We ought to obey government rather than God.”

Most of them would also scoff at the idea that we have long confronted the same quandary as did our counterparts in Germany or ancient Rome. And yet governments at all levels — municipal, county, state, federal — have ordered us to violate Biblical strictures for decades. Tragically, we have almost always acquiesced rather than show the fortitude and independent thought of our fathers in the faith. Then we blame our cowardice on a bizarre and spineless “patriotism.”

For example, bureaucrats now require the impoverished to steal by accepting medical insurance their neighbors subsidize. Equally appalling, said insurance pays for killing innocent children before birth. Yet far from preaching against such evil, many alleged Christians claim it is our duty to endorse such robbery and murder.

Indeed, we could expand from Obummercare to anything that taxes finance. Taxation is morally indistinguishable from theft since it extracts money by force. The government’s thieves are often armed with degrees in law rather than knives or guns; they dress better than your average mugger and they cloak their crimes in euphemisms. But they are thieves nonetheless. Their plunder buys any “benefit” or “entitlement” that politicians promise us.

And that’s to say nothing of the utterly immoral uses they make of our money, from sexually molesting passengers in airports to assaulting children’s innocence.

Yet there is no concerted Christian outcry against such obscene larceny and, so far as I know, never has been in American history. In fact, just the opposite: many Christians condemn those who protect their assets from the IRS as sinful.

And forget the Golden Rule when it comes to local taxation and that sacred cow, children. Let the school board propose yet another levy, and a parent’s only concern is whether he personally can afford more taxes. If so, he votes for it (though no Christian has any business ever voting for theft, let alone at higher rates).

But what about the elderly widow down the street? Can she spare an extra $100 annually to pay for Jeremy’s football games and Deidre’s Spanish class? If you’re a Christian, shouldn’t her worries and welfare have figured into your thinking? Are you doing unto those on a sparse budget as you would have them do unto you were your wallet as empty as theirs?

Choose you this day whom ye will serve,” the Bible admonishes. Outrageously, most of the American Church chooses government, not God.

— Becky Akers

Becky Akers is a free-lance writer and historian who publishes so voluminously that whole forests of gigabytes have died. You’ve heard of some of the publications that carry her work (Personal Liberty Digest, Christian Science Monitor, Washington Post, Barron’s, New York Post); others can only wish you’d heard of them. She’s also written two novels of the American Revolution, Halestorm and Abducting Arnold. They advocate sedition and liberty, among other joys, so the wise reader will buy them now, before they’re banned.

Source: Will County News

The Sexual Revolution Turns Ugly

The Sexual Revolution Turns Ugly

November 2017

How many intellectuals have come to the revolutionary party via the path of moral indignation, only to connive ultimately at terror and autocracy? ∼ Raymond Aron

The Sexual Revolution is now out of control. Initially promising freedom, like all revolutions, it has entered something like its Reign of Terror phase and is devouring its own children. As with other revolutions, it is not because the revolutionaries enjoy broad popular support; it is because civic and religious leaders are confused, divided, and cowed into silence. Those whom one expects to impose some order on all this—conservative politicians, religious leaders, civil libertarians, journalists, scholars—are either hiding under the table or signaling their virtue by themselves fanning the flames of a hysteria that they show no interest in trying to understand.

Even as one hysteria—the campus “rape epidemic”—is finally exposed as a hoax by the common sense of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, another breaks out over Harvey Weinstein and others (and still others) emerge almost daily. The commentariat from the left to the right is either diffident or so intoxicated with sanctimony that they are unable to write about it critically. Yet once we strip away the obfuscating jargon and ideology, it becomes very clear what is going on.

For there is nothing new about the sordid behavior. All that is new—and all that makes it newsworthy—is that it has been politicized.

To begin with, there is not, and never has been, any epidemic of “sexual harassment,” “sexual assault,” “domestic violence,” or the rest. It is not that deeds associated with these terms do not happen; the terms themselves are ideological constructions designed to create hysteria and mean nothing. There are, and always have been, criminal statutes in place to protect women (along with everyone else) from violent crime. There have also long been civil provisions to protect them from sexual pressure from superiors in the workplace. Anyone experiencing either of these offenses can readily file charges or complaints. And no, there is certainly no longer any “stigma” against doing so, if there ever was.

What we do have—as many long ago warned we would have—is a highly sexualized culture controlled by men and women who have succeeded in changing the terms of sexuality because they have both ideological and pecuniary interests in using sex as a financial tool and a political weapon. Privileged men and women have thrown off virtually all controls on sexual indulgence, which they can use not only for personal self-gratification but also—and quite predictably—as the means to advance their careers, accumulate wealth, eliminate rivals, punish opponents, extort money, and generally acquire political power. These practices are especially rampant in the commanding heights of our culture: the media, universitiesHollywood, television, and the fashion industry, all of which by their nature are dedicated to profiteering off sexual appeal and which bestow high rewards on people who provide it. Because most of us are consumers of these industries, few of us can completely wash our hands of responsibility.

The early opposition to all this, by Christians and other ethical critics, was long ago ridiculed into silence by the political shock troops of the Revolution: the feminist and later the homosexualist ideologues, who advertised unrestricted sex as a form of political “liberation” from “oppression.” This enlisted the intellectuals and provided a moralistic zeal that diametrically inverted the moral stigma from those who indulged in the sexual freedom to those resisting it, who were then stigmatized as political oppressors.

Now, after decades of serving as the intellectual apologists for this crass culture, those same radical ideologues have found that they can further increase their influence and power from the chaos they helped create by turning the resulting unpleasantness into newfangled quasi-crimes that no one fully understands and which permit no defense. Having ridiculed not only the Christians themselves into silence but also their annoying, old-fashioned vocabulary of “sin,” “immorality,” “fornication,” and “adultery,” the radicals have substituted jargon that instead condemns ideological unorthodoxy (“sexism,” “misogyny”) and implies criminality: “sexual harassment,” “sexual abuse,” “sexual misconduct,” “sexual assault,” sexual this and sexual that.

In short, sexual ideologues have created a new political theology, replete with a politicized, government-approved definition of sin. Or in other words, they eliminated religious sin and replaced it with political crime. Rather than removing the shame and stigma of the “fornicator” and “adulterer” as they promised, they have simply replaced it with that of the “abuser” and “harasser.” In the process they have replaced morality with ideology, and community standards with themselves as the sole arbiters of innocence and guilt.

Is there a difference? Yes. The traditional sins were clear and precise, they applied equally to all, they were enforced by apolitical authorities like parents, churches, and local communities, and the punishment was social disapproval and ostracism. By contrast, the new ideological crimes are vague and lack any fixed definition, only men can be guilty of them, and they are enforced by lawyers and gendarmes and punishable with lawsuits and prison.

This “liberation” illustrates precisely the logic that transforms the Rights of Man into the Reign of Terror. The fanatical Antoine de St. Just could have been speaking for the Sexual rather than the French Revolution when he declared, “No freedom for the enemies of freedom!”

No one really understands what terms like “sexual harassment” and “domestic violence” mean, which is precisely the point. They can mean anything, and the definitions are constantly expanded (even with a seemingly clear matter like “rape”) and tailored to fit the accused. Thus they blur the distinction between behavior that is distasteful or (dare I say it?) immoral from that which is criminal, and they circumvent the due process protections of the criminal law with flimsy procedures and “relaxed” rules of evidence, often in irregular kangaroo courts which are erected—like the pseudo-courts in other revolutions—to ensure the predetermined outcome of punishment.

In Weinstein’s case, it is not clear what precisely the accusations are. Typically, we hear of matters that seem clearly criminal: “rape.” But then it starts to sound vague: “abuse,” “exploitation,” “misbehavior.” Which is it? (A columnist notes the same modus operandi in the “harassment” scandal now engulfing the British House of Commons: a “toxic list included open and perfectly consensual sexual relationships along with the supposed infractions.”) This MO allows the penal system to intervene in the private lives of innocent people by linking their ordinary acts to criminality. The vagaries allow them to establish the larger principle that all male-female relations themselves constitute political oppression.

None of the Hollywood figures queueing up to advertise their virtue by denouncing Weinstein seem to have any first-hand evidence of anything. Two report that he met them for interviews in his room wearing a bathrobe. The rest have “rumors” and “stories” from others. Several say he behaved with complete professionalism and did nothing improper. Some report physical passes, and some reports do sound like they crossed the line into both sexual and physical assault (including many against men), in which case there are, again, criminal statutes that could readily have been invoked at the time. Would complaints have jeopardized one’s career? Welcome to the responsibilities of citizenship.

Far more likely of course is that the “victims” were part of a larger game trading sexual allure for career advancement.

If someone has evidence that Weinstein committed a crime, it can be reported, he can be tried, and that could be the end of it. But that would not serve the radicals’ lynch mob agenda—the same lynch mob that Secretary DeVos has challenged in the universities, and others have challenged involving “child abuse,” “domestic violence,” “deadbeat dads,” and the rest.

The point is not to report a crime but to create hysteria that can then be used against people far more innocent than Weinstein appears to be. Weinstein will have to plead his own case. But once the flimsy procedures are in place—as a result of hysteria from the same Hollywood and media culture that created the problem in the first place, they can then be used again the innocent.

Even beyond the university students, few of whom will ever see the inside of a jail, other targets are indeed already languishing behind bars because of the zeal of the sexual hysterics—and the silence of others.

Now that Secretary DeVos has made it safe to do so, conservative pundits—who for years remained mute as other journalists and a few scholars risked their careers and reputations to blow the whistle—are now coming out of the woodwork to trumpet their own virtue. Even the National Review, which for years studiously looked the other way in the face of rampant injustice, and even supported the hysterics, has suddenly discovered that the witch hunt, about which they were told for years, is real.

But the proof of their newfound virtue will be seen in how they respond to the other, more serious injustices and witch-hunts still being fomented by the feminist victimization industry. Military men are likewise subject to trumped-up accusations of “sexual harassment” and hounded out of the services, as Brian MitchellMartin Van Creveld, and others have documented, if they are not first plundered by the divorce courts. And as Stuart Taylor and K.C. Johnson along with others have shown, those accused of rape in the real courts can no more expect justice than in the campus kangaroo courts, and they can spend years in prison.

In fact, even the larger the rape hoax is only one of a series of witch hunts generated by the radical sexual lobby:

I.  Despite numerous exposés since the 1980s, knowingly false accusations of child abuse against selected parents for political purposes are still out of control: Christian parentshomeschooling families, involuntarily divorced fathers, or any parents. Here too we see the politics of accusation, the suspension of due process protections, and the fingerprints of the radicals. Like the feminist attorneys whose salaries drain taxpayers’ dollars at the Department of Education and students’ tuition in the state-funded universities, feminist lawyers and social workers launch equally groundless accusations to rationalize the government confiscation of children from their parents. Also like the university rape accusations, hoax after hoaxhorror story after horror story, make little impact on the juggernaut of fabricated accusations.

II.  Systematic accusations of “domestic violence” constitute what attorney David Heleniak calls “a due process fiasco”:  Heleniak identifies six separate denials of due process (and there are more). Here too, violent assault is criminally punishable in every jurisdiction on earth. But “domestic violence” has nothing to do with violent assault, any more than “campus rape” has anything to do with real rape. It is another politicized collusion between the radicals and the bar associations, earning enormous salaries by denying due process to innocent Americans who possess no platform to defend themselves. In feminist parlance, “domestic violence” can mean anything from verbal insults to refusing demands for money. It is virtually never adjudicated with a jury trial, and—most astounding of all—no one is ever acquitted.

III.  Accusations of nonpayment of child support—so-called “deadbeat dads”—constitute perhaps the most vicious witch-hunt and hoax, where due process protections are non-existent. Assembly-line hearings often last a minute or two, when men are sentenced to indefinite incarceration that can last years. Many receive no hearing at all but are sentenced (they too are never acquitted) in an “expedited judicial process.” According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, accused fathers must prove their innocence against unspecified accusations, without counsel, and without a jury. Most frighteningly, no public record of the incarcerations exists.

Unlike these men (and women), those like Harvey Weinstein (Bill Cosby, Julian Assange, etc.), plus students and soldiers who indulge in casual sex, arguably are asking for trouble and deserve what they get. At one time, we might have understood their ordeal theologically: though they receive an unjust punishment from man, they are being justly punished by God. This theological principle might help some men see a more constructive course to correct not only their own comportment but also the larger political problem. It could well convey the message to men that, like it or not, you are inevitably the ones that will be held responsible, and it is therefore up to you to exercise the moral (and political?) leadership.

Yet significantly, no such argument has been put forth for discussion by church leaders, who simply avert their eyes and hold their tongues from matters that would seem to be in their direct purview: sexual morality. So cowed are Christian leaders that they almost never speak of “fornication” and “adultery” (or even “sin” very much), even in their own churches. So now they too try to save themselves from irrelevance by jumping on the bandwagon to advertise their own ideologized virtue. Today one is far more likely to hear a sermon about “sexual harassment” or “misogyny” than about fornication or adultery, despite the huge social and economic consequences generated by out-of-wedlock births. Ironically, the very “self-righteousness” accusation they have tried for years to deflect they now embrace.

Yet the theological principle hardly justifies unjust quasi-criminal punishments. For one thing, any secular government must distinguish sin from crime, as the old religious standards recognized in distinguishing legitimate spheres for Caesar and for God. Ironically, the hyper-secularized radicals are the ones substituting a new political theology and a quasi-theocratic approach to sexual ethics.

Now the revolutionaries, intoxicated with power, are moving beyond defenseless private individuals and targeting larger prey in the realm of high politics. They tried this in the election campaign against Donald Trump, turning his lewd comments into an opportunity to further insinuate ideology in the place of traditional sexual morality.

Now, more subtly, they have set their sights on their own liberal-left elite. By targeting Weinstein and others like him, the radicals are (by accident or design) adroitly recruiting conservative moralizers as their stooges. Conservatives delight in pointing out that liberal male politicians like Bill Clinton who are the most outspoken feminist supporters are also the most aggressive womanizers. Yet lacking the fortitude to content themselves with traditional stigmas against Clinton’s or Weinstein’s immorality in hitting on married women and betraying their own wives, they parrot the radical jargon of the “harassment” industry. When one understands the dynamics of feminist politics it is clear that the radicals will have the last laugh, because the end result is that we further abandon morality for ideology.

But perhaps the greatest impact of this sleight-of-hand is the morally debilitating effect it has on all of us. I mean not simply our willingness to accommodate sexual permissiveness but even more our willingness to confuse self-righteous moralizing with true moral understanding. The Weinstein affair vividly illustrates how ideology has turned our public discourse into a cacophony of sanctimonious scolding. Rather than establishing clear rules of sexual morality and having the courage to uphold them in our daily face-to-face interactions with other people, we hire professional disapprovers with political muscle—journalists and media pundits, lawyers, judges, police, and jailors—to inflict punishments in our name, while we sit back and safely jeer at the malefactors from afar. This indulgence in the soothing pleasures of moral posturing entails no risk to ourselves and no requirement to take responsibility for our own role in either the sexual decadence or, if they turn out to be unjust, the ensuing witch hunts. And we need not bother ourselves about niceties like rules of evidence or due process of law. In short, we have adopted the justice of the mob, into which the Sexual Revolution, like every revolution, must inevitably degenerate.

Stephen Baskerville


Stephen Baskerville is Professor of Government at Patrick Henry College and Research Fellow at the Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society, the Independent Institute, and the Inter-American Institute. He holds a Ph.D. from the London School of Economics and attends an Anglican parish in Virginia. His most recent book The New Politics of Sex: Civil Liberties and the Growth of Governmental Power is published by Angelico Press.

Source: Will County News

Chicago, Gangs, and Guns Part I

Chicago, Gangs, and Guns Part I


Chicago, Gangs, and Guns Part I

“I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you.” – Friedrich Nietzsche


Rarely a day goes by that some form of the statement “Chicago has the strictest gun laws” is repeated on social media and on gun forums. Even the NRA and GOA representatives continually parrot that line,  usually in reference to the record murder rates the city has experienced this year with the attached comment, “How’s that gun control working out for you, Chicago?“. Most reading probably agree, and have repeated it. But, here’s the problem:

Chicago does not have the strictest gun laws. Not even close.

Chicago used to – Rifles and shotguns had to be registered with CPD, which was all but impossible to do, and the city had a complete handgun ban. The only way a person could own one was if it was registered with the city, in their name, before January, 1982 – and re-registered every year after.

However, in 2010, SCOTUS ruled in McDonald v. Chicago that the city’s handgun ban was unconstitutional. Shortly after, the city instituted an ownership permit/ registration/training scheme which required massive amounts of hoops to be jumped through for a resident to obtain a handgun.

Enter Moore vs Madigan – In 2013 the 7th Circuit ruled that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms extended outside a person’s home. The Court basically told the State of IL they had to issue carry permits.

In July of 2013 the IL Legislature passed shall-issue CCL legislation, and in it removed the home rule privileges regarding gun laws from municipalities. What that meant was Chicago’s licensing and registration requirements were now null and void.

So, how do Chicago’s gun laws stack up compared to places with obtrusive gun laws like NY, Los Angeles, New Jersey, etc.? They really don’t.

Here’s how it breaks down:

Every IL resident who wishes to possess a firearm or ammunition must first obtain an Illinois Firearm Owner ID Card (FOID.) The card is shall issue, is $10 and good for 10-years, and may be applied for through the mail. Now, is that BS? Sure – it’s dumb, it does nothing, and it’s a violation of Article II – but it amounts to a minor inconvenience. So, Chicago residents need that before they may buy a gun.

Chicago has a city ordinance that for all intents and purposes prohibits FFL dealers from setting up shop in city limits. Yeah – that sucks, and that is a hurdle residents have to jump, but it amounts to going to the nearest suburban gun shop and making your purchases there – Again, a speed bump, and certainly tenable by most residents.

Cook County, where Chicago is located, has its own “assault weapons” ban, which, as a compromise during debate of the CCL law, was allowed to stand. However, it’s more of a suggestion since each city has to sign on to it, and most have not – and only those that did before, or during the grace period after, the CCL legislation was passed may abide by it. No new cities in Cook County may join on. There are a plethora of gun shops in Cook County stocked up with all manner of AR15’s, FAL’s, AK’s, etc., ready to sell to IL residents with valid FOID cards. The Cook County AWB is also in litigation, and is highly unenforced.

Chicago adopted the ban pre-CCL, but, it has little to do with handguns – only effecting things like the Tech9’s, which are ridiculous choices for personal defense, anyway. All manner of practical, modern, auto-loading pistols are legal to own in the city, and available in suburban gun shops for purchase.

The CCL legislation also preempted the over 10-round magazine capacity restriction included in the Cook County ban. So, 17-rounds in your M&P are fine, according to state law. Chicago never repealed their 10-round rule, but the state law is clear.

Obtaining a carry permit requires a 16-hour class, fingerprints, and a fee – but it is shall issue (9 states still don’t have that.) A few non-felon applicants have had problem obtaining one due to the review powers local LE have, but many are able to appeal and move forward. It took about 6 to 7 months for the first CCL permits to be approved as the process got off the ground, but it has streamlined a bit and most new permits are issued within 30 to 45 days. As of today there have been around 170,000 (estimated) permits issued.

IL does have a 3-day wait on handgun purchases.

Cook County has an additional ammunition sales tax, and a trigger lock rule for homes with minors.

Yes, there are some grey areas and things people will argue about – and yes, it’s not perfect and the state has a long way to go before its Arizona. Also, it could all change tomorrow as no person’s rights are secure when the legislature is in session, but…

This is what it boils down to today for residents of Chicago:

A Chicago resident who is eligible under state law (non-felon, not under an order of protection, not under psychiatric care, etc…) may secure a FOID through the mail for $10. They may then frequent the gun shop of their choice outside the city limits (there are MANY) and purchase whatever carry handgun (or handguns) they would like. Three days later they may return to pick it up, and then transport (under Federal regulations) it to their domicile in the city.

If they choose to carry, those 21-years-old and over, may contact one of the 4000+ IL Certified CCL Instructors and sign up for a class. They’ll have a permit in a couple of months.

With that permit they may carry as many pistols as they like, with as many rounds as they’d like, concealed, down any street in Chicago.

no weapons

But what about “gun free zones?” Yes, Chicago has such rules. Guns are forbidden on public transit, as well as anywhere there are State Approved posted signs. And I would agree that it’s stupid and arbitrary, but, for the most part, those signs are not posted anywhere on the streets or sidewalks where gang members in Chicago are shooting each other.

So, does Chicago have restrictions? Sure. Just not anywhere near the far off galaxies of New York City or New Jersey, and not anywhere near the perceived level the gun world parrots. Most people simply think Chicago residents can’t own guns, or doing so is an endeavor equal to climbing the Matterhorn – not true. But, more importantly, the gun laws are not in any way affecting the behavior of gangsters doing gangster things. The gun laws, either positively or negatively, are simply not the crux of issue with murders in Chicago. And we, as supporters of the right, do ourselves a disservice suggesting otherwise.

I’ll explain why in Part II

About the Author:

Frank has been a firearms instructor for over 15 years. As a senior staff instructor for Defense Training International (DTI), and Lead Instructor of Fortress Defense, he has trained thousands of citizens, police, and military in the art of defensive firearm use. Frank is the author of the DTI Instructors’ Standards Manual, and specializes in the effective instruction of female students. He regularly speaks on defensive issues for women’s groups and community watch organizations.

Source: Will County News

War bills are coming due

War bills are coming due

military spending concept

The 16 years of wars since 9/11 have run up an enormous $4.3 trillion bill that is coming due.

report from Brown University’s “Costs of War Project” puts the interest paid to date on the war spending at $543 billion and rising. It found that even if the U.S. stopped war spending at the end of this fiscal year, interest on the war debt will reach $8 trillion by 2056.

The U.S. is currently involved in wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen  and Somalia that we know about, and the war party is advocating and agitating more wars with Iran and Russia. And all of these wars have been funded by borrowed money.

Earlier this month both the Senate and House Armed Services Committees agreed on a $700 billion defense authorization bill for 2018. That amount exceeds the limit called for in the 2011 Budget Control Act by $85 billion.

With Congress debating a tax reform measure that is projected to add another $1.7 trillion to the national debt – which is now in excess of $20 trillion – and making no effort to cut government, something will have to give. It will be the economy.

By any real accounting, the U.S. is bankrupt. But the printing press has kept the banksters and the military-industrial complex fat and happy.

The Middle East wars are the visible wars. They conceal the hidden war being waged on the people of the United States.

The hidden war is the stealth depreciation of America’s currency and the silent transfer from the people to the world elite – the money creators. Depreciation of the currency through money printing is direct war on all dollar holders worldwide. No soldiers, no guns, no tanks, no budgets, no charges of crime, no fear of the press, no public outcry. The fox is in charge of the henhouse but the hens are unaware. In fact, they are unaware that they are unaware.

This is the final world war that will leave millions destitute and in poverty. Only a few will know what happened. The rest will slink about in their misery, trying to eke out a living or find a morsel of bread.

Is there anybody out there who doesn’t understand that if you keep pouring water in the milk, you finally have all water? This is how fiat finally destroys all savings and purchasing power.

Yes, the modern alchemists have taken nothing, multiplied to infinity and transferred to themselves the wealth of the world.

Source: Will County News