↓ Archives ↓

Archive → December 7th, 2017

Ives Calls For Repeal of the Trust Act

For Immediate Release 
Ives Calls For Repeal of the Trust Act
As Gov, I won’t pretend not to be in charge. I will lead this charge. With Republican colleagues like John Cabello and downstate Democrats this is doable and should be done.
December 7, 2017 – This morning, Representative Ives will held a joint press conference with Brian McCann, the brother of a man dragged to his death by an undocumented immigrant, to call for a repeal of the ‘Trust Act.’
Ives Remarks:

To date, there have been nearly 3,400 shootings and almost 650 homicides in the city of Chicago alone. As leaders, we should be focused on protecting families, not criminals.

Governor Rauner betrayed people, like Brian McCann, who is still awaiting justice for his brother, Dennis McCann. He betrayed law-abiding families in favor of political pandering.

By signing The Trust Act, the governor made all of us less safe. I am ready to lead the charge against the pandering political class. Illinoisans from all walks of life want the security that comes from knowing violent felons will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Ruling Class types like Rauner and Rahm are very cavalier with the lives of others people. They use people as the means to their political ends.

Rauner said he would meet with victims families before signing sanctuary state. Another lie. Another betrayal. He never did.

I’m a pro-legal-immigration conservative. America as a beacon of freedom and opportunity for people the world over is a good thing and should be maintained. But we cannot be without the rule of law.

Rauner and Rahm think they are above the law and thus can decide who has to follow it and who doesn’t.

Sanctuary state protects those who violate the law expense of those who follow the law.

Sanctuary state pits law enforcement agencies against one another rather than encouraging cooperation in the interests of making communities safer.

Sanctuary state should be repealed. As Gov, I won’t pretend not to be in charge. I will lead this charge. With Republican colleagues like John Cabello and downstate Democrats this is doable and should be done.

Ives McCann Presser 1.jpg


For more information or to book Jeanne Ives, contact Kathleen Murphy at 630-329-4680 orkathleenemurphy26@gmail.com

Source: Will County News

Protect your liver from pesticide poisoning

Protect your liver from pesticide poisoning

I just finished reading an article that said a new study found that 75 percent of honey samples around the world are now contaminated with at least one pesticide.

That’s a scary statistic considering that not only does that mean that the bees which are responsible for pollinating our plants and ensuring our food supply are being poisoned, it also shows how pervasive dangerous pesticides really are in the food we eat every day.

In fact, according to the study, while 75 percent of the samples overall had at least one contaminant, 45 percent had two or more — and 10 percent had four or more!

Even more frightening was the fact that although the results varied by region, in North America, 86 percent of samples had the pesticide. That means that only 14 percent of North American samples were safe and free of contaminants.

Liver cancer from the food you eat

And, those pesticides could be causing more damage than you ever realized…

You see, your liver is responsible for clearing all the toxins from your body, but when it’s overloaded, it can lead to disease.

In fact, exposure to pesticides could dramatically increase your chance of getting liver cancer — the sixth most common cancer in the world, and the second deadliest cancer (behind pancreatic cancer), with a five year survival rate after being diagnosed of only 17 percent.

In a new meta-analysis, researchers looked at 16 studies that included more than 480,000 participants in Asia, Europe and the U.S. to determine just how much pesticide exposure affected a person’s risk of liver cancer.

The results were staggering…

The study found that pesticide exposure was associated with a 71 percent increased risk of liver cancer — meaning that being exposed to pesticides gives you a 71 percent higher chance of ending up with one of the deadliest forms of cancer.

But, there is something you can do.

Ancient liver booster

To protect your liver from the damage caused by pesticides, I’d normally advise eating organic produce. But this problem with the bees makes me wonder if organic can really be pesticide free. Bees are obviously picking up these pesticides as they make their way around doing their “thing” — pollinating.

So to really ensure you and your liver are safe, eating organic may not be enough…

There’s an ancient liver booster that’s been found to help support the elimination of environmental pollutants, like pesticides — milk thistle.

Milk thistle has been used for 2,000 years as an herbal remedy for a variety of ailments, particularly liver, kidney and gall bladder problems. And, several scientific studies have shown that substances in milk thistle (especially a flavonoid called silymarin) could protect your liver from toxins.

Silymarin not only has antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, it may even help your liver repair itself by growing new cells.

Early laboratory studies show that milk thistle may even:

• Stop cancer cells from dividing and reproducing
• Shorten the lifespan of cancer cells
• Reduce blood supply to tumors

And, in 2007, after reviewing numerous studies involving milk thistle therapeutic treatments, researchers at the University of Minnesota found that:

“There is strong preclinical evidence for silymarin’s hepatoprotective (liver-protecting) and anticarcinogenic effects, including inhibition of cancer cell growth in human prostate, skin, breast, and cervical cells.”

To get the most liver protection from a milk thistle supplement you want to look for one that is at least 80 percent silymarin. It’s also a good idea to increase your liver’s natural detoxification enzymes by eating cruciferous vegetables such as Brussels sprouts and broccoli as often as you can.






Source: Will County News

Time for third party revolution?

Time for third party revolution?


The Democrat Party is a disgusting mess and establishment Republicans are working overtime to wrest growing inter-party power from grassroots conservatives by any means possible. It’s no wonder a massive number of young Americans are ready to try something long considered radical in American politics.

Recent polling out from NBC News and the University of Chicago reveals that 18-34-year-old support for a third party option in coming national elections is at a record high. Among the demographic, the data show that an astonishing 71 percent of respondents want ballot options divorced from the corrupted Democrat and Republican political machines.

Young Americans have historically been the group most receptive to third party candidates in American politics– so, it might be tempting to write off the recent data of support for third party options as a symptom of a longtime political pipe dream shared by American youth spanning generations.

But breaking down the NBC/University of Chicago data, it becomes apparent that disgust with two-party politics is likely playing a bigger role in the desire for a third party than simple political idealism.

According to the poll, 74 percent of voters in the range currently identifying as Democrats and 67 percent identifying as Republicans want another option.

Political analysts frequently claim that millennial voters are something of a political paradox because polling routinely shows that these voters hold political views that which don’t line up with the black/white shouting points of the current political establishment.

For instance, a Reason magazine survey of the demographic back in 2014 found that 65 percent of millennials supported government spending cuts to boost the economy– but 62 percent and 58 percent called for spending increase on job training and infrastructure, respectively.

Fifty-eight percent said they want tax cuts, but 66 percent want hikes for wealthy Americans.

Seventy-four percent support a robust government social safety net, but 66 percent lack faith in government to manage programs.

In general, polling data find millennials to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative– but they don’t fit neatly into the category of capital L Libertarians because of support for government services.

For supporters of new options in American politics, that should be viewed as a good thing.

The only way to explain why is to consider the world millennials have grown up in. This is an entire generation of people raised in a country that’s been at war for most of their lives. It’s a generation that’s seen the number of billionaires in the United States increase by hundreds as technology and outsourcing have hurt working class wages. Likewise, it’s a generation that has seen tech companies go from overnight successes to economic powerhouses which wield more control and hold more wealth than many countries throughout the world. It’s also a generation caught between massive corporate power, technologically enabled opportunity and stifling government regulation– think tech companies which use costumers as product and know everything about you, the gig economy, and government regulations designed to protect corporate cronies by making it difficult to operate as a micro-business when it should be easier than ever.

Millennials have seen enough of what doesn’t work from both major parties to believe there are better options. They don’t want no government at all, they want more effective government. If there must be a war, it needs to be winnable rather than serving as a blank check to the defense industry. If government is handing tax benefits to billion dollar corporations, there must be measurable proof of how that benefits Americans more than campaign coffers. If government is willing to allow big tech to monopolize the online experience, it should also deregulate Joe Schmo selling goods on the street without a permit.

The Washington establishment has long used Us versus Them tactics to hide the fact that members of both major parties are united as plutocrats more than they’re divided as Democrats or Republicans. Millennials are noticing, and by 2020 they’ll be the biggest voting bloc in the nation.

Source: Will County News

Undoing the Dis-Education of Millennials

Undoing the Dis-Education of Millennials

I teach in a law school. For several years now my students have been mostly Millennials. Contrary to stereotype, I have found that the vast majority of them want to learn. But true to stereotype, I increasingly find that most of them cannot think, don’t know very much, and are enslaved to their appetites and feelings. Their minds are held hostage in a prison fashioned by elite culture and their undergraduate professors.

They cannot learn until their minds are freed from that prison. This year in my Foundations of Law course for first-year law students, I found my students especially impervious to the ancient wisdom of foundational texts, such as Plato’s Crito and the Code of Hammurabi. Many of them were quick to dismiss unfamiliar ideas as “classist” and “racist,” and thus unable to engage with those ideas on the merits. So, a couple of weeks into the semester, I decided to lay down some ground rules. I gave them these rules just before beginning our annual unit on legal reasoning.



Before I can teach you how to reason, I must first teach you how to rid yourself of unreason. For many of you have not yet been educated. You have been dis-educated. To put it bluntly, you have been indoctrinated. Before you learn how to think you must first learn how to stop unthinking.

Reasoning requires you to understand truth claims, even truth claims that you think are false or bad or just icky. Most of you have been taught to label things with various “isms” which prevent you from understanding claims you find uncomfortable or difficult.

Reasoning requires correct judgment. Judgment involves making distinctions, discriminating. Most of you have been taught how to avoid critical, evaluative judgments by appealing to simplistic terms such as “diversity” and “equality.”

Reasoning requires you to understand the difference between true and false. And reasoning requires coherence and logic. Most of you have been taught to embrace incoherence and illogic. You have learned to associate truth with your subjective feelings, which are neither true nor false but only yours, and which are constantly changeful.

We will have to pull out all of the weeds in your mind as we come across them. Unfortunately, your mind is full of weeds, and this will be a very painful experience. But it is strictly necessary if anything useful, good, and fruitful is to be planted in your head.

There is no formula for this. Each of you has different weeds, and so we will need to take this on the case-by-case basis. But there are a few weeds that infect nearly all of your brains. So I am going to pull them out now.

First, except when describing an ideology, you are not to use a word that ends in “ism.” Communism, socialism, Nazism, and capitalism are established concepts in history and the social sciences, and those terms can often be used fruitfully to gain knowledge and promote understanding. “Classism,” “sexism,” “materialism,” “cisgenderism,” and (yes) even racism are generally not used as meaningful or productive terms, at least as you have been taught to use them. Most of the time, they do not promote understanding.

In fact, “isms” prevent you from learning. You have been taught to slap an “ism” on things that you do not understand, or that make you feel uncomfortable, or that make you uncomfortable because you do not understand them. But slapping a label on the box without first opening the box and examining its contents is a form of cheating. Worse, it prevents you from discovering the treasures hidden inside the box. For example, when we discussed the Code of Hammurabi, some of you wanted to slap labels on what you read which enabled you to convince yourself that you had nothing to learn from ancient Babylonians. But when we peeled off the labels and looked carefully inside the box, we discovered several surprising truths. In fact, we discovered that Hammurabi still has a lot to teach us today.

One of the falsehoods that has been stuffed into your brain and pounded into place is that moral knowledge progresses inevitably, such that later generations are morally and intellectually superior to earlier generations, and that the older the source the more morally suspect that source is. There is a term for that. It is called chronological snobbery. Or, to use a term that you might understand more easily, “ageism.”

Second, you have been taught to resort to two moral values above all others, diversity and equality. These are important values if properly understood. But the way most of you have been taught to understand them makes you irrational, unreasoning. For you have been taught that we must have as much diversity as possible and that equality means that everyone must be made equal. But equal simply means the same. To say that 2+2 equals 4 is to say that 2+2 is numerically the same as four. And diversity simply means difference. So when you say that we should have diversity and equality you are saying we should have difference and sameness. That is incoherent, by itself. Two things cannot be different and the same at the same time in the same way.

Furthermore, diversity and equality are not the most important values. In fact, neither diversity nor equality is valuable at all in its own right. Some diversity is bad. For example, if slavery is inherently wrong, as I suspect we all think it is, then a diversity of views about the morality of slavery is worse than complete agreement that slavery is wrong.

Similarly, equality is not to be desired for its own sake. Nobody is equal in all respects. We are all different, which is to say that we are all not the same, which is to say that we are unequal in many ways. And that is generally a good thing. But it is not always a good thing (see the previous remarks about diversity).

Related to this:  You do you not know what the word “fair” means. It does not just mean equality. Nor does it mean something you do not like. For now, you will have to take my word for this. But we will examine fairness from time to time throughout this semester.

Third, you should not bother to tell us how you feel about a topic. Tell us what you think about it. If you can’t think yet, that’s O.K.. Tell us what Aristotle thinks, or Hammurabi thinks, or H.L.A. Hart thinks. Borrow opinions from those whose opinions are worth considering. As Aristotle teaches us in the reading for today, men and women who are enslaved to the passions, who never rise above their animal natures by practicing the virtues, do not have worthwhile opinions. Only the person who exercises practical reason and attains practical wisdom knows how first to live his life, then to order his household, and finally, when he is sufficiently wise and mature, to venture opinions on how to bring order to the political community.

One of my goals for you this semester is that each of you will encounter at least one idea that you find disagreeable and that you will achieve genuine disagreement with that idea. I need to explain what I mean by that because many of you have never been taught how to disagree.

Disagreement is not expressing one’s disapproval of something or expressing that something makes you feel bad or icky. To really disagree with someone’s idea or opinion, you must first understand that idea or opinion. When Socrates tells you that a good life is better than a life in exile you can neither agree nor disagree with that claim without first understanding what he means by “good life” and why he thinks running away from Athens would be unjust. Similarly, if someone expresses a view about abortion, and you do not first take the time to understand what the view is and why the person thinks the view is true, then you cannot disagree with the view, much less reason with that person. You might take offense. You might feel bad that someone holds that view. But you are not reasoning unless you are engaging the merits of the argument, just as Socrates engaged with Crito’s argument that he should flee from Athens.

So, here are three ground rules for the rest of the semester.


1.  The only “ism” I ever want to come out your mouth is a syllogism. If I catch you using an “ism” or its analogous “ist” — racist, classist, etc. — then you will not be permitted to continue speaking until you have first identified which “ism” you are guilty of at that very moment. You are not allowed to fault others for being biased or privileged until you have first identified and examined your own biases and privileges.

2.  If I catch you this semester using the words “fair,” “diversity,” or “equality,” or a variation on those terms, and you do not stop immediately to explain what you mean, you will lose your privilege to express any further opinions in class until you first demonstrate that you understand three things about the view that you are criticizing.

3.  If you ever begin a statement with the words “I feel,” before continuing you must cluck like a chicken or make some other suitable animal sound.


To their credit, the students received the speech well. And so far this semester, only two students have been required to cluck like chickens.


Adam J. MacLeod is an associate professor of law at Jones School of Law at Faulkner University in Montgomery, Alabama.

Source: Will County News