Special elections—one 2009 and two 2010 elections


Tonight I’m off my planned post again but do plan to start posting on Illinois’ budget next.

The focus of tonight’s post is the upcoming general election in 2010. This election will be a pivotal election if conservatives are to regain control of the nation. With all the attempts of the Democrats to radically alter the direction of this nation, if conservatives are not able to retake the Congress or at least greatly increase their impact in the decision making process, the nation is in even deeper trouble than it is presently. This is not about Republicans winning but about conservatives winning.

The primaries MUST be a priority. If a conservative does not win the primary in the Republican Party, I would suggest looking at a third party conservative candidate. I will be doing that in the Illinois Senate race as the in-power Republicans early on supported a RINO Republican. With over half a dozen candidates, conservatives were not able to coalesce around one conservative candidate.

Whether or not a conservative wins in a primary, do not use a shotgun approach to the 2010 election. Rather, use a scoped rifle approach. It is neither necessary that we win ever election in 2010 nor is it probable. We need to concentrate on the winnable contests that have true conservatives running in the race. That’s the scoped rifle approach. We carefully select the targets—and at this point there are a lot of probable targets—and then work like crazy and contribute money, as needed, to win those selected elections.

Three special elections that have already occurred should work as case studies on what needs to be done. The first was the New York special election last year in District 23. As has been occurring, the established Republican leadership selected a bad candidate. From what I have read and heard, the Republican selected was even more liberal than the Democratic candidate in a Democratic district. In response, conservatives put forth their own candidate. The second and third special elections occurred this month. The second election was the special election in Pennsylvania District 12—John Murtha’s seat before his death. The third was the special election in Hawaii for District 1. The Democratic Congressman resigned to run for governor. In Arizona, a candidate in the last year of his term must resign if running for a different office. That may also be the case in Hawaii although I don’t know for certain. (I personally like that Arizona law.)

1) New York District 23

I’ve been having problems posting. The picture posted recently without text didn’t seem readable so I’m trying again tonight after cutting the size of the picture. It is a section of the ballot in New York District 23’s special House of Representatives election in November of last year. After the election results came in, I was told by a local resident that used to live in New York that New York uses an unusual ballot process.

Looking at the ballot, note that both the Democratic and the Republican candidates were listed as party candidates on the ballot for two political parties. It is my understanding that the votes for the candidate for each party are then combined. On the ballot, William Owens was listed as both a Democrat and a candidate for Working Families. Dede Scozzafava was listed as both a Republican and a candidate for the Independence Party. Douglas Hoffman, who was supported by many conservative Republicans, was listed as a candidate for only the Conservative Party.

If you’ll remember, he was doing so well among probable voters that Dede Scozzafava withdrew from the race right before the election, consequently her name was still listed on the ballot and she still received votes, and threw her support to the Democrat. The Democrat won in a close election.

William Owens, after taking office for the remainder of the term, voted for the nationalization of healthcare. If Douglas Hoffman runs as a Republican in the 2010 election as well as a candidate for the Conservative Party, he may well defeat William Owens in the 2010 election.

2) Pennsylvania District 12

According to the Peoria Journal Star on May 19, 2010, page A2: “In another race with national significance, Democrat Mark Critz won a special House election to fill out the term of the late Democratic Representative John Murtha in southwestern Pennsylvania. The two political parties spent roughly $1 million apiece hoping to sway the outcome there, and highlighted the contest as a possible bellwether for the fall when all 435 House seats will be on the ballot.”

In March when the nationalized healthcare bill was still being hotly debated and I was doing income tax work and therefore did not have the time I normally spend reading, I started listening to talk radio—Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity—when I had an opportunity, to stay current. I have continued to listen as I have time since I hear more accurate information and more complete information than I read in my local paper—the Peoria Journal Star. Some but not all of the following information is from listening to the above mentioned programs.

I don’t know if the candidates for the House were selected by party leaders or in a special primary election. I do know that while Democrat Mark Critz and Republican Tim Burns were running against each other in the House special election they, on the same day, were also running for the nomination for their respective political parties in the primary election for the 2010 election. According to my information, Mark Critz won the special election by 7-8% even though the district is 2-1 registered Democrats over registered Republicans. I could not find the turnout percentage but I also know that John Murtha won his election in 2008 with 58% of the vote which was a higher percentage than received by Mark Critz. Mark Critz was also endorsed by John Murtha’s widow and had worked for Murtha in Congress as a Congressional Aide.

In the primary election to represent their parties in 2010, the figures are rather startling.

In the Democratic Primary election:

Mark Critz received 59,820 votes

Ryan Bucchianeri received 16,705 votes

Ronald Mackell received 6,426 votes

for a total of 82,951 votes cast in the Democratic primary for candidates for the House of Representatives

In the Republican Primary election:

Tim Burns received 26,194 votes

William Russell received 19,775 votes

for a total of 45,969 votes cast in the Republican primary for candidates for the House of Representatives

If all Democrats who voted in the primary election also voted for Mark Critz in the special election and all Republicans who voted in the primary election also voted for Tim Burns in the special election, Mark Critz should have won the election with 64% of the vote, excluding independent voters. Of course, all Democrats and all Republicans probably would not vote for the party candidate. Certainly a large number probably did vote for the candidate that is representing their party in the special election. Thus, it seems likely that a larger percentage of independent voters voted for Tim Burns, the Republican, than for Mark Critz, the Democrat and the winner of the special election.

One voter calling the Limbaugh Show said that William Russell ran against John Murtha in the 2008 election and, as a conservative Republican, he and his wife were once again supporting Russell in the primary. Therefore, they DID NOT vote for Tim Burns in the special election. However, since Burns also won the Republican primary, they would vote for Burns in the 2010 general election.

Furthermore, according to a commentary printed in the Peoria Journal Star on May 26, 2010, page A4 by George Will: “The candidate who last week won the special election in a Pennsylvania congressional district is right-to-life and pro-gun. He accused his opponent of wanting heavier taxes. He said he would have voted against Barack Obama’s health care plan and promised to vote against cap-and-trade legislation, which is a tax increase supposedly somehow related to turning down the planet’s thermostat. This candidate, Mark Critz, is a Democrat.”

In other words, in order to help him win in the special election, Mark Critz sounded like a conservative Republican. If he does not vote in the manner he said he would, he may be very vulnerable in the 2010 general election. Will he stay conservative, at least through this year, to get reelected in November? If this is an example of Democrats holding their own, are they in trouble for the general election in 2010?

At the present time, Democrats hold both Senate seats in Pennsylvania with Arlen Specter’s switch to the Democratic Party. Secter lost his bid for the Democratic nomination in the primary even though supported by President Barack Hussein Obama. Presently, the Democrats hold 12 of the 19 seats in the House of Representatives for Pennsylvania.

2) Hawaii District 1

Both of Hawaii Senators are Democrats and before the special election both of their members in the House of Representatives were Democrats. Hawaii is considered a Democratic blue State. The first District was where Barack Hussein Obama lived when he lived in Hawaii. The coverage in our local news paper has been sparse in relation to this special election. However, it seems that a Republican has won this District. Neil Abercrombie who gave up the seat to run for Governor of Hawaii won his election in 2008 with 71% of the vote. If Republican Charles Djou can hold the District in the 2010 general election, things seem dark for the Democratic majority in the House if this Democratic District in the heart of a blue State can be won, which has already occurred, and held!

Arizona’s illegal immigration law—enforced!


“The … County Sheriff’s Department on Tuesday arrested two illegal immigrants who both had outstanding felony warrants in other counties.

Police said they were called to the … Tire and Auto Repair, where three men were trying to get an impounded vehicle without proof of ownership.

Two of the men, Cesar M. Alcala, 21, of … and Marcos C. Anota, 23, of … were in the country illegally, police said they learned after contacting the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Division.

No information was available about the third man.

Alcala and Anota were taken to the … County Jail, where they are being held on $75,000 bond each for outstanding felony warrants.

Police said Alcala had a … County warrant for perjury and Anota had a … County warrant for possessing a fraudulent ID card, driving under the influence and other traffic offenses.

Both men will remain in the jail until their charges in all counties are concluded and will then be transferred into federal custody for extradition. The country or countries of extradition could not be confirmed Friday.”

Well there you are! The first news paper account of the “racist” Arizona illegal immigration law being enforced. The Arizona authorities arresting and holding two men with Hispanic sounding names who never would have been questioned by the police if it wasn’t for this “racist” new illegal immigration law passed by the racists in Arizona. Right?

Well, no! Not quite. Filling in the blanks (…) deliberately left out of the story, the story reads as follows:

“The Fulton County (in Illinois—my addition) Sheriff’s Department on Tuesday arrested two illegal immigrants who both had outstanding felony warrants in other counties.

Police said they were called to the Lewistown Tire and Auto Repair (in Fulton County, Illinois—my addition) where three men were trying to get an impounded vehicle without proof of ownership. (In other words, they were being questioned for an action on their part that “might” be illegal—my addition.)

Two of the men, Cesar M. Alcala, 21, of Beardstown (in Illinois—my addition) and Marcos C. Anota, 23, of Peoria (in Illinois—my addition) were in the country illegally, police said they learned after contacting the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Division. (Do you think the police may have asked for ID and also for papers showing they were in the United States legally before contacting the Immigration and Customs Division of Homeland Security?—my addition)

No information was available about the third man.

Alcala and Anota were taken to the Fulton County Jail (in Illinois—my addition), where they are being held on $75,000 bond each for outstanding felony warrants. (The only way the police could have found out about the felony warrants was to first check the individuals’ IDs and papers and then contacting other agencies to see if there were outstanding warrants. Right? I don’t believe the illegal immigrants said, “Well, you know, we each have outstanding warrants against us.” Or did they?—my addition)

Police said Alcala had a Cass County (in Illinois—my addition) warrant for perjury and Anota had a McDonough County (in Illinois—my addition) warrant for possessing a fraudulent ID card, driving under the influence and other traffic offenses.

Both men will remain in the jail until their charges in all counties are concluded and will then be transferred into federal custody for extradition. The country or countries of extradition could not be confirmed Friday.” (Could be Mexico? Could be another Latin America country? Could be Canada? Could be any county in the world? Was it racist to question and arrest them?—my addition)

The above is from the Peoria Journal Star on May 22, 2010, page B2. I thought I was finished for the time being with the Arizona illegal immigration law until I read this story Saturday afternoon. It was too good to not post.

I wrote the following on my April 27, 2010 post concerning the new Arizona law.

“Then, according to another Peoria Journal Star article published on April 24, 2010, page A2; the Republican Governor of Arizona signed into law a bill that accomplishes the following:

1) “Makes it a crime under state law (Arizona law—my addition) to be in the country illegally.” (Obviously, Arizona can only enforce the law within the boundaries of the State of Arizona. There is presently a federal law against illegal immigration. If not, by definition, there would be no such thing as illegal immigration—my addition.)

2) “Requires local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is a reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants.” (This law does NOT send out local police officers in search of illegal immigrants! Too bad! We’d catch more illegal immigrants if we were searching for them—my addition.)

3) “Allows lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws.” (Obviously, this provision allows lawsuits against Arizona government agencies since States do not have the authority to allow lawsuits against federal government agencies. Certainly, the State of Arizona does have the authority to allow lawsuits against Arizona State agencies. What are State agencies doing hindering the enforcement of the law?—my addition)

4) “Makes it illegal to hire illegal immigrants for day labor or knowingly transport them.” (There is presently a federal law making it illegal to hire illegal immigrants and to aid and abet their delivery into the country or from one portion of the nation to another by crossing State lines. Thus, this is basically a restatement of federal law to be enforced by local law enforcement officials—my addition.)

One would think that the federal government would welcome the help of the State of Arizona to enforce through its own laws, laws that are similar to federal law. But, no! According to the same article, President Barack Hussein Obama has condemned the efforts of the Arizona legislature. “Earlier Friday, Obama called the Arizona bill ‘misguided’ and instructed the Justice Department to examine it to see if it’s legal. (Since when does the Justice Department determine the legality of State law? What utter arrogance on his part!—my addition) He also said the federal government must enact immigration reform at the national level—or leave the door open to ‘irresponsibility by others.’ (Did the President of the United States just call the elected legislature of the State of Arizona and the Governor of Arizona irresponsible? What utter arrogance on his part! By the way, from what I have heard, the law is supported by 70% of the citizens of the State of Arizona including 50% of Arizona Democrats. Does that make all of these citizens irresponsible? What utter arrogance on his part! He has made it an art form to misuse the word reform. Everything seems to be a reform for him. His idea of reform, in this instance, is to grant American citizenship to those individuals who have deliberately violated federal law. It is NOT mine! By definition, illegal immigrants are criminals! By definition!—my addition)”

What provision of the new Arizona law posted above is any different than what is described in the news story of May 22, 2010 in relation to the actions of Illinois police officers and the apprehension of these two identified illegal immigrants? Why are the President of the United States and other illegal immigrant supporters so enraged by the Arizona law when the same practices are occurring in Illinois 1500 miles away? Could it be because Arizona is next to the Mexican border and therefore enforcing the law will result in more illegal immigrants being arrested and theoretically being deported and the President and illegal immigrant supporters DON’T WANT the LAWS of the UNITED STATES ENFORCED when it comes to ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!!!

It’s not the law they are against. It’s ENFORCEMENT of the law that they oppose!

Arizona’s illegal immigration law and the Illinois connection


Illinois has 59 State Senatorial Districts. Each Senate District then has two Districts for the House of Representatives. The 44th Senatorial District includes a portion of Tazewell County but not where I live in Tazewell County. My section is in the 53rd Senatorial District. The Republican candidate for Governor this year represents the 44th Senatorial District. The 44th District has the 87th and 88th House of Representative Districts.

All of the above is leading to a letter to the editor which was published in the Peoria Journal Star on May 21, 2010 and written by 87th District Representative Bill Mitchell. Approximately 1500 miles away from the Mexican/Arizona border (Tucson, where I lived for a number of years, is approximately 1500 miles from Morton, my home town, and approximately 60 miles from the border), the Arizona illegal immigration law is having an impact on Illinois. The letter as published is as follows:

“As one of 28 state representatives to vote against Rod Blagojevich’s (impeached and convicted ex-governor—my addition) All Kids (All Kids is an alleged program to provide healthcare cover for children who are not covered by other government programs—my addition) scam, I concur with the Journal Star’s May 16 Our View, “Effective, lasting fixes needed for mismanaged ‘All Kids’ program.”

In the wake of the critical state audit of the All Kids program (published as a news story in the Journal Star on May 12th—my addition), which indicated that 75 percent of enrollees were undocumented immigrants (illegal immigrants—my addition), I am moving to stop illegal immigrants from receiving health care benefits.

The All Kids program provides health care coverage for children, regardless of family income or immigration status. All Kids enrollees aren’t eligible for federal Medicaid funds, so the entire cost of providing health insurance to illegal immigrants is paid for by Illinois taxpayers.

Illinois is drowning in a sea of red ink. We have a $13 billion deficit and owe our schools, health care providers and social services $4.6 billion and counting. ($4.6 billion allocated by this year’s budget! Next year’s budget has not been finalized—my addition.) Why in the world are we spending $55 million per year on health insurance (in one program, the All Kids program—my addition) for illegal immigrants? With the General Assembly heading back to session next week, I intend to file a budget amendment to strip out the funding for illegal immigrants receiving taxpayer-funded health insurance.

If the U.S. Congress wants to see the future, look to Illinois. (OUCH!!!—my addition) The passage of ObamaCare could add an extra billion dollars to Illinois’ Medicare costs, which already consume one-third of our general fund budget (which is a deficit budget—my addition). We cannot afford the health care system already in place. But much like our Democrat-controlled General Assembly, the Democrat-controlled Congress chose to ignore reality.

Illinois needs to fix our broken welfare system now. Failure to do so will only add to the mountain of debt that future generations are being buried under.

Bill Mitchell
State Representative
87th District”

Both the Chicago White Sox and the Chicago Cubs hold spring training in Arizona. The White Sox is one of three teams that train in Tucson. The Cubs and the rest of the Major League teams that train in Arizona do so in the Phoenix metropolitan area. The White Sox have a long term agreement with Tucson. The Cubs’ agreement is about to run out but a new agreement has been negotiated. I don’t know if it has been signed yet. The Cubs are the single largest draw in Arizona in spring training games. Which is not surprising, when I lived in Arizona, the single largest number of migrants into Arizona from other States was from California. The third largest was from Illinois. (I was one of those migrants at one time but I am not a Cub fan and have not seen them at a spring training game.)

Why all this “useless” information? After the Arizona illegal immigration law was passed, the call went out to cancel the All-Star game scheduled for the Phoenix area in 2011. At this point, Major League baseball has said it will not be cancelled. The White Sox manager also criticized the new law as published in the sports pages of the Peoria Journal Star. I don’t remember if he called for a boycott. According to the Saturday morning Peoria Journal Star, May 22, 2010, page D6; The White Sox team is 7 games below 500 and 7½ games out of first in its Division. One would think that the manager would have more important things on his mind than the illegal immigration law in Arizona.

Watching WGN news at 9 PM last week, opponents of the Arizona illegal immigration law were outside of the Cub stadium collecting signatures on a petition to call for the Cubs to move its spring training site from Arizona to Florida. At least one signature collector was incorrectly saying that the new law allowed the police to stop people on the street to ask for proof of citizenship. She was saying that a baseball player could be stopped outside of the Arizona Diamondbacks’ ballpark and asked for papers. Such a statement is both untrue according to the law and ridiculous on the face of it. And yet, Cub fans who said they had signed the petition where repeating the same nonsense.

As I said, a new contract for the Cubs has been negotiated but I don’t remember if it has been signed. I would think though that management is wise enough to know that if the Cubs moved to Florida they are probably not going to be the top draw as they are in Arizona. Both the Yankees and Boston train in Florida and, I would think, would probably outdraw the Cubs. Also, the St. Louis Cardinals train in Florida and also have a large Illinois following which might draw more people to Cub/Cardinal exhibition games but would also divide the Illinois crowd when both teams are playing other teams. Furthermore, according to Saturday’s paper, the Cubs are 5 games under 500 and 6 games out of first. Again, one would think that Cub fans would have more important things on their mind than the illegal immigration law in Arizona.

According to WGN news at 9 PM Friday night—May 21st, students from four Chicago High Schools walked out of their classes in protest against the Arizona illegal immigration law calling the new law racist. Do you think these students have actually read the Arizona law? Do you think that these students know what racism is? Hispanic which is used usually for people of Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican origin (Yes, I looked it up to make sure.) isn’t even a race. In fact, a true Hispanic—one who originated in Spain—is normally Caucasian, i.e. white, in the colloquialism! Are these students, who all taxpayers are providing funds for their education, furthering their education by walking out of class to protest an Arizona law that the State of Illinois has no control over? Or was this just an excuse to get out of school?

Meanwhile, according to a short article in the Peoria Journal Star published on May 2, 2010, page B7, “Illinois Governor Pat Quinn is blasting a tough new Arizona immigration law.” Now let me see if I have this right, the Governor of Illinois whose State has a projected $13 billion deficit for the next fiscal year, has a State pension fund that is only funded at 54% or less, and is spending $55 million in healthcare costs for illegal immigrant children is now the authority on ARIZONA LAW and what ARIZONA SHOULD DO. I DON’T THINK SO!!!

Finally, two short letters to the editor published in the Peoria Journal Star. The first was May 10, 2010, page A4.

“It seems as if a great number of people are disturbed by the recent law passed by the sovereign state of Arizona regarding illegal immigrants. Please allow me to help.

From Funk and Wagnalls New Practical Standard Dictionary, Volume I: ‘Illegal-adj. Contrary to the law; not legal. See synonyms under criminal.’

‘Immigrant-noun. One who … immigrates; specifically, a foreigner who enters a country to settle there.’

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.”

XXXXX XXXXXXX (I don’t give the name of ordinary citizens when I quote a letter to the editor—my addition)

The second was May 11, 2010, page A4.

“Regarding the recent immigration law, hey, all you Arizona experts: What is it about ‘illegal’ that you don’t understand?”

XXXXXXXX XXXXXX (I don’t give the name of ordinary citizens when I quote a letter to the editor—my addition)

Arizona is criticized by Mexican President?


I’ve decided to write one more post dealing with the Arizona illegal immigration law at this time. Then, hopefully, I’ll return to the Illinois budget. As most of you should know, the President of Mexico is in the United States, at least on the 19th and 20th. The headline of the story published in the Peoria Journal star on May 20, 2010, page A2 proclaims “Obama urges federal immigration fix.” The sub-headline says “Before White House gala, Mexican president criticizes Arizona law.”

Some quotes from the article include:

“Confronting soaring frustration over illegal immigration, President Barack Obama on Wednesday condemned Arizona’s crackdown and pushed instead for a federal fix the nation could embrace. He said that will never happen without Republican support, pleading: ‘I need some help.’

(Now wait a second! The President is a Democrat. The Democrats have a majority in the House of Representatives. The Democrats have a majority in the Senate. The Democrats with the nationalization of healthcare demonstrated that they can cram down the throats of the American people a law without a single vote from Republicans in the House of Representatives. Why does the President need Republican help? The MAJOR problem with his concept of a fix is his desire to capitulate to illegal immigrants and grant them citizenship for violating our law. Never will I support granting citizenship to people who are within the United States illegally. NEVER!!!—my addition)

In asking anew for an immigration overhaul, Obama showed solidarity with his guest of honor, Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who called Arizona’s law discriminatory and warned Mexico would reject any effort to ‘criminalize immigration.’ (NOW WAIT A SECOND! When did Mexico have ANY say in what a law of ANY State in the UNITED STATES says!!! Who does he think he is? Does he not know what illegal means? Illegal immigration by definition is already criminalized and has been for years by federal law. The problem is that the federal government does NOT bother enforcing its own law!!! And that is President Barack Hussein Obama’s fault!!! Yes, it is! He is the head of the executive branch and the responsibility of the executive branch is to ENFORCE THE LAW!!!—my addition) The United States and Mexico share a significant economic and political relationship that stands to be damaged the more the nations are at odds over immigration, which affects millions of people on both sides of the border.” (Who do you think will be damaged more?—my addition)

The following is from the Phoenix Business Journal http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/ with the link provided for the article:

Phoenix Business Journal: Mexico’s immigration law far tougher

“Mexico’s immigration law far tougher
Friday, April 30, 2010, 2:46pm MST

‘Authorities, whether federal, state or municipal ... are required to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country, before attending to any issues.’ (MUST PROVE their LEGAL PRESENCE in the country—my emphasis and addition)

Guess whose law that is? It’s not Arizona’s. It’s Mexico’s Population Law Article 67 and it certainly reads like a ‘where are your papers’ law.

The Mexican government opposes Arizona’s take on U.S. law that requires immigrants to carry green cards and visas. The Arizona law allows police to question and arrest suspected illegal immigrants.

The Arizona law has sparked calls for boycotts from Hispanic groups and Tucson congressman Raul Grijalva; lawsuits from groups like the ACLU and Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and a travel warning from the Mexican government for Mexicans headed to Arizona. (I hope ILLEGAL travelers from Mexico heed the warning and STAY OUT of Arizona!—my addition)

An Amnesty International report released Wednesday said illegal immigrants in Mexico (often from Central America) face rapes, kidnappings and mistreatment, and Mexican police turn a blind eye.

‘Migrants in Mexico are facing a major human rights crisis leaving them with virtually no access to justice, fearing reprisals and deportation if they complain of abuses,’ said Rupert Knox, Mexico researcher of the human rights group.

‘Persistent failure by the authorities to tackle abuses carried out against irregular migrants has made their journey through Mexico one of the most dangerous in the world,’ the report said.

Other highlights of the AI (Amnesty International—my addition) report on Mexico include:

Kidnappings of migrants, mainly for ransom, reached new heights in 2009, with the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) reporting that nearly 10,000 were abducted over six months and almost half of interviewed victims saying that public officials were involved in their kidnapping.

An estimated six of 10 migrant women and girls experience sexual violence, allegedly prompting some human smugglers to demand that women receive contraceptive injections ahead of the journey, to avoid them getting pregnant as a result of rape.” (And the President of Mexico is complaining about Arizona’s law? What a travesty! And the President of the U.S. is siding with the President of Mexico over a law passed in Arizona that mirrors the federal law! What an absurd travesty!—my addition)

I wrote the following on my blog in June of 2007:

I received the following e-mail in late May from a reliable source (I have corrected some punctuation and changed the font.—my addition) When I asked him about it, he said he had received it second hand. No source was given for the information so I don’t know how reliable it is. My guess is, and it is only a guess, that it is factual, at least for the most part.

“READ THE WHOLE THING AND PASS IT ON TO EVERY AMERICAN YOU KNOW! HARSH YOU SAY??

1) There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no special ballots for elections, and all government business will be conducted in our language.

2) Foreigners will NOT have the right to vote, no matter how long they are here.

3) Foreigners will NEVER be able to hold political office.

4) Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, nor any other government assistance programs.

5) Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

6) If foreigners do come and want to buy land that will be okay, BUT options will be restricted. They are not allowed to own waterfront property. That property is reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.

7) Foreigners may not protest; no demonstrations, no waving a foreign flag, no political organizing, no ‘bad-mouthing’ our president or his policies. If they do they will be sent home.

8) If you do come to this country illegally, you will be hunted down and sent straight to jail. (See my comments at the end of this material—my addition.)

Harsh, you say? The above laws happen to be the IMMIGRATION LAWS of Mexico!”

“I have written about immigration before including last year when Congress was debating whether or not to grant citizenship to illegal immigrants. On my June 12, 2006 post entitled ‘Immigration again’ I wrote: ‘This is the ranking of countries ‘… based on World Bank Gross Domestic Product figures from 2004.’’ The country ranked 12th based upon gross domestic product figures from 2004 was Mexico! I also wrote during the same post that ‘Mexico has the toughest penalties for immigration fraud. Prison sentences for violating that country’s immigration laws range from two years for first offenders to 10 years for repeat offenders.’ (Peoria Journal Star, May 7, 2006, page A8)

As I said, my guess is that the above information is basically correct based upon my understanding of Mexico. Yet, the country complains about how we treat illegal immigrants that have come here from Mexico!!!”

Arizona Strikes Back?


I’m changing directions again tonight and discussing the new Arizona illegal immigration law for one post and then plan to return to the Illinois budget. If you read this blog regularly, you already know that I lived in Arizona for a number of years and that I enthusiastically support the new law against illegal immigration.

I heard the following on those ultra conservative radio talk shows starting with Glen Beck while listening in the car. The information was repeated on Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

As you probably know, some leadership in some major cities has condemned the new Arizona law. The city of Los Angeles has called for a boycott of Arizona because of the new law.

Arizona may be striking back! According to the reports, one of the five members of the Arizona Utility Commission wrote a letter to the mayor of Los Angeles. In that letter, he said that if Los Angeles dares to boycott Arizona then Los Angeles should boycott all Arizona products including the electricity that Arizona provides to the city of Los Angeles.

After all, how can the city of Los Angeles accept Arizona electricity when the city is boycotting Arizona? Wouldn’t that be hypocritical to pick and choose what products are being boycotted? By the way, according to the letter according to the commentators, Arizona provides 25% of Los Angeles’ electricity.

Arizona has several nuclear power plants located near Phoenix. According to Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007 [DVD]. Redmond, Wa: Microsoft, Corporation, 2006; here are the 25 largest nuclear power plants in the United States ranked 1 through 25 as of 2005.

“01) Palo Verde 2—west of Phoenix, AZ
02) South Texas Project 1—south-southwest of Bay City, TX
03) South Texas Project 2—south-southwest of Bay City, TX
04) Palo Verde 3—west of Phoenix, AZ
05) Palo Verde 1—west of Phoenix, AZ
06) Perry 1—northeast of Painesville, OH
07) Grand Gulf 1—south of Vicksburg, MS
08) Wolf Creek 1—northeast of Burlington, KS
09) Byron 1—south-southwest of Joliet, IL
10) Braidwood 1—south-southwest of Joliet, IL
11) Salem 1—south of Wilmington, DE
12) Seabrook 1—south of Portsmouth, NH
13) Vogtle 1—southeast of Augusta, GA
14) Comanche Peak 1—north of Glen Rose, TX
15) Comanche Peak 2—north of Glen Rose, TX
16) Vogtle 2—southeast of Augusta, GA
17) Sequoyah 1—northeast of Chattanooga, TN
18) Millstone 3—west-southwest of New London, CT
19) Susquehanna 2—northeast of Berwick, PA
20) Susquehanna 1—northeast of Berwick, PA
21) Limerick 1—northwest of Philadelphia, PA
22) Limerick 2—south-southwest of Joliet, IL
23) Catawba 1—northwest of Rock Hill, SC
24) Catawba 2—northwest of Rock Hill, SC
25) Callaway—southeast of Fulton, MO

Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.”

I post this information for two reasons. First, Arizona has the largest and the fourth and fifth largest nuclear electricity producing plants in the nation. And second, California with all of their tree-hugging “environmentalists” has none in the top 25 nuclear power plants in the nation. If Los Angeles boycotts Arizona, then certainly Los Angeles should refuse to accept Arizona electricity. Do you think? Can you say brownouts!

That’s not all though. Colorado River water flows through Arizona to California. I don’t know if Los Angeles, per se, receives Colorado water but I do know that California does. Do you think California will also refuse Colorado water since it flows through that “racist” State of Arizona?

Illinois State budget—we’re #1!


I’ve decided to continue this series on the Illinois budget. When finished, I plan a post or two on Arizona and its new law concerning illegal immigration within the State. Then, I’ll return to previously planned posts.

UPDATE

I received another comment last Saturday from “Anonymous” who then signed at the end of his comment as “Morton Secular Progressive.” I do plan to respond but not until I’ve finished with the Illinois budget and the Arizona law against illegal immigration.

I had computer problems during my last post and only posted a map of the United States showing the % of funding for State pensions. The map is from http://www.illinoisisbroke.com/. According to that map, the State of Illinois can proudly declare “We’re # 1!” Of all the fifty States (Yes, there are only fifty States—not 57!), Illinois has the claim to fame of underfunding its State pension fund more than any other State. According to the map, Illinois in fiscal year 2008 only funded its pension account at 54% of what it should have been. “We’re number one!” “We’re number one!” “We’re number one!”

I’m not very familiar with the State pension system in Illinois but according to the map only 4 States have their pension program funded at 100% or more. Thus, this underfunding is a problem in the vast majority of the States. Of course, according to the map, no State is as underfunded as is the State of Illinois.

(When I was a teacher in Illinois, I contributed to a pension fund controlled by the State. However, when I moved from Illinois to Arizona, I withdrew my contribution from the fund. At that time, I was not allowed to receive the matching fund put into my account from the 2+ school districts that I had worked for while teaching. I also received no interest for the years that my money was in the fund.)

According to a news story published in the Peoria Journal Star on April 10, 2010, page A9, the pension problems in States including Illinois will likely continue into the future.
Some of the information provided includes the following:

“The struggle to fund public pension plans is dogging most states in the country and probably will continue for years before it eases, a new study concludes.

The Center for State and Local Government Excellence (PLEASE don’t study Illinois government!—my addition) said in releasing its report Thursday that the recession and resulting stock market declines hurt the assets of public pension plans while squeezing tax revenues needed to keep up with funding pension obligations.”

“The study looked at both state and local public pension plans in the 50 states. In 2008, those plans collectively had an 84 percent funding ratio, although Illinois notably trailed the field with a ration below 60 percent. (Somewhat of an understatement considering that according to the information from http://www.illinoisisbroke.com/ Illinois is #1 in underfunded pension plans for all fifty States at 54%!—my addition)

A year later, because of the nation’s economic crisis, the ratio of assets to liabilities nationally dropped to 78 percent. (Which no doubt means that Illinois’ percentage also dropped since the State in fiscal year 2009 did next to nothing to lessen the underfunding in the State’s pension program—my addition.) And the study concluded that ratio will continue to drop, even if the economy recovers to some degree.

‘Under the most likely scenario, we see the funding ratio deteriorating to 72 percent in 2013,’ Munnell said.”

“One important thing governments can do to keep from falling further behind, Munnell said, is to pay the full ‘annual required contribution’ into their pension systems determined by actuaries. A major cause (Let’s repeat this beginning—A MAJOR CAUSE—my addition) of Illinois’ pension funding problems is that the state did not always make that full contribution.” (That’s putting it mildly!—my addition)

An earlier column entitled “Let’s cut to the heart of pension reform” published by the Peoria Journal Star on March 28, 2010 page B1 contains the following information:

“To paraphrase Radogno (Republican State Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno—my addition), many Illinoisans don’t have a retirement plan to look forward to that’s anywhere close to those available to people covered by state plans. Radogno said it becomes a tough sell to convince the public they need to pay more to sustain retirement plans that aren’t available to them and at the same time are better than theirs.” (Do you think!—my addition)

“A public pension does have security. (Does it ever!—my addition) That’s becoming a scarcer commodity for private sector employees. As defined benefit plans (the State pension program—my addition), the state plans make pension payments whether you live one year as a retiree or 40 or more.

For many in the private sector, retirement income will come from a 401(k) or other defined contribution plan. Once the money in them runs out, well, too bad. There’s no guaranteed lifetime income with those. Add to that the fact those plans have taken a beating in the recession, and there’s plenty of resentment over public pensions that look a whole lot better than the private sector ones right now. (And on into the future!—my addition)

Here’s the kicker. The people who were to receive such pensions from the State knew how difficult it is for State governments (especially Illinois State government) to wisely handle money. Consequently, when the State Constitution was rewritten in 1970, State pension protection was written right into the Constitution!

Article XIII—General Provisions, Section 5. Pension and Retirement Rights:

“Membership in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.”

In other words, if the State actually follows the Constitution (which has been known to be a problem), once a pension program is established for the covered workers it can never be less although it can be more for those specific covered workers!

Remember that the State of Illinois is the number one employer in the State. Now do you understand why State workers are demanding that the State increase taxes so that State programs are not reduced? If workers get dismissed, they may have to get a private sector job and lose not only their current paycheck but also a very sweet pension plan. Who wouldn’t want to continue working for the State? Now do you understand why State unions continually demand more and more State programs? Once a program starts, it’s difficult, if not impossible, to end the program and that means a lifetime of employment for their members and sweet pensions at retirement. No wonder the State is the number one employer in the State. It’s a sweet deal for those involved. And the rest of us get to finance it! IT’S EASY TO SPEND OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY!!!

IT’S EASY TO SPEND OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY!!!

IT’S EASY TO SPEND OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY!!!

IT’S EASY TO SPEND OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY!!!

Illinois State budget—the deadbeat granny State


I’ve decided to continue this series on the Illinois budget. When finished, I plan a post or two on Arizona and its new law concerning illegal immigration within the State. Then, I’ll return to previously planned posts.

The following is from “The Illinois State Comptroller’s Quarterly,” Daniel W. Hynes, Comptroller, Edition 35, April 2010, page 1.

“Through the first three quarters of fiscal year 2010 (The State’s fiscal year runs from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010—my addition), the state’s cash flow position continued to deteriorate with the backlog of General Revenue Fund bills reaching historic levels. At the end of March, the volume of unpaid bills from the General Funds in the
Comptroller’s Office stood at $4.496 billion (outstanding bills that need to be paid of 4.496 BILLION DOLLARS!—my addition) while at this time last year payables totaled $3.401 billion. Just as significantly, the state has had to prioritize critical payments such as debt service and other obligations vital to the operating of state programs such as General State Aid to Education. The state has also had to accelerate large Medicaid disbursements in order to continue qualifying for increased federal stimulus funding revenues. As a result, the backlog includes unpaid transfers and vouchers from the first quarter of the fiscal year and those delays have become increasingly problematic. (The first quarter of the fiscal year, of course, is from July 1, 2009 through September 30, 2009. So the State is at least six months behind on the payment of some bills with only three months left in the fiscal year when the above was written. Expenditures are suppose to be paid in the same fiscal year in which the debt occurred—my addition.)

In March the state made the first payment of $506 million towards $2.25 billion in short-term borrowing loans that were issued to address fiscal year 2009 bills. The remaining $1.75 billion plus interest must be repaid by June 10th of this year, further exacerbating cash flow issues for the remainder of the fiscal year.” (This is the cost of borrowing to pay for programs that the State didn’t have enough revenue to support—spending more than the State is receiving. I don’t know how much the interest rate was or the length of the loan. However, the interest owed on a 2% simple loan of $2.25 billion for 6 months would be twenty-two million, five hundred thousand dollars [$22,500,000]. Can the State afford to pay millions of dollars in short term interest when it can’t even afford to pay its present legal obligations? Legal obligations because the State spends much more money than it collects and the State DOES IT DELIBERATELY!—my addition)

The following are from selected newspaper articles printed in the Peoria Journal Star:

1) Peoria Journal Star, 4/10/2010, page B1: “Unpaid state bills imperil programs”

“Peoria—When Springfield (the State Capital—my addition) doesn’t pay $5.5 billion worth of bills, people in Peoria suffer.

That’s the projected backlog by the end of June. Then, already struggling social service agencies face the prospect of additional cuts in the coming fiscal year.

‘This has been an ongoing issue for the last two or three years,’ said Gina Edwards, marketing director for the Heart of Illinois United Way.” (Of course, this organization is a nonprofit charitable organization. Why is the State “donating” money to charitable organizations? Is this part of its priority problem?—my addition)

“A similar scenario is unfolding at Easter Seals (another nonprofit charitable organization—my addition), which is owed $462,000 by the state, according to Jim Runyon, director of grants and governmental affairs. That’s roughly 7 percent of Easter Seals’ $6.5 million operating budget.

2) Peoria Journal Star, 5/06/2010, page B1: “State has failed in its obligation”

“Canton—Spoon River College voted Wednesday to issue $3.5 million in bonds that taxpayers will have to repay over the next several years, because the state remains behind in its payments to the school.”

3) Peoria Journal Star, 5/06/2010, page B5: “State has failed in its obligation”

“It’s hard not to be disappointed to have to take this action,’ college President Robert Ritschel said. ‘It’s a strong indicator that the state has failed in its obligation to provide support to community colleges.’

“Maguire (Spoon River College Trustee Dave Maguire—my addition) also said the college is receiving only 75 percent of the funding it should be getting from the state.

‘It’s a cash-flow problem,’ he said. (The State doesn’t have any cash to flow! The State spends more money than it receives in revenue and does it year after year after year!—my addition)

4) Peoria Journal Star, 5/15/2010, page B1: “Delinquent dollars difficult to deal with”

a) “Heartland Community Health Clinic has yet to see the money for a $157,000 grant that started last July.”

b) “Crittenton Centers is owed $215,000.” “At Crittenton Centers, some of the $215,000 in backlogged bills date to October. The agency just started to use a line of credit to make payroll.” (page B3)

c) “… the Human Service Center is short almost $4 million thanks to bills that haven’t been paid by the state of Illinois.”

5) Peoria Journal Star, 5/15/2010, page B3: “No IOUs, but no money either”

“Programs shut down, organizations near bankruptcy as Illinois ignores unpaid bills”

“A supplier refused to sell bullets to the Department of Corrections unless it got paid in advance. (Good for the supplier! Obviously, the owner(s) has learned that it’s not wise to trust the State of Illinois to pay its bills. Cash up front or no product provided. It’s the only logical way to deal with a deadbeat State which spends more than it collects year, after year, after year. What would you do as a business owner?—my addition) Legislators have gotten eviction notices for their district offices because the state wasn’t paying rent. One legislator said he had to use campaign funds to pay the telephone bill after service was cut off at his office.

The practice of simply putting off payments became commonplace under ex-Gov Rod Blagojevich who liked to spend but adamantly opposed a tax increase to help cover costs.” (Excuse me, but it is the legislature, not the governor, who allocates money. If he was illegally spending money for years then he should have been impeached and convicted sooner. Instead, he was re-nominated by the Democratic Party and reelected by the people of Illinois—my addition)

“Some schools have tried to shame Illinois into paying by posting signs announcing how much the state owes. (The State can’t pay money that it doesn’t have. The State doesn’t have because it spends more money than it collects and has been for years—my addition.) The website http://www.illinoisisbroke.com/ details the state’s financial mess. Associations hold rallies and write letters to the editor. (Most of these are from Associations who receive money from the State and, almost without exception, they want a tax increase rather than spending cuts because they still want to receive their cut of the pie. They actually encourage the “spend now, worry about revenue later” mentality now in play at the State General Assembly—my addition.)

The state still remains months behind.

Illinois is on track to end the current fiscal year with about $6 billion in unpaid bills. Budget proposals for the coming year—when the state faces a $13 billion deficit—assume the same thing will happen again. (The members of the State Legislature do not collectively have the political will to do the only fiscally responsible action—set priorities and then cut, cut, cut until the anticipated revenues equal the expenditures as required by the State Constitution—my addition.)

The state owes money for all kinds of services provided in its name, such as medical care for the elderly and disabled and day care for the working poor.”

“Many agencies have borrowed money to keep the doors open, but service providers say that’s getting harder to do—banks are more reluctant to lend money on a promise that the state will pay up someday.”

“State leaders have no plan to catch up on the bills anytime soon, not with a $13 billion deficit to tackle. The Pew Center on the States said last year that in percentage terms, Illinois’ deficit is nearly as big as the gap in California, the gold standard for states in crisis.” (Illinois—the State that gave Barack Hussein Obama to the nation. No wonder he is so good at spending money!!!—my addition)

6) Peoria Journal Star, 5/15/2010, page A4: “How much does Deadbeat Illinois owe you” (a Peoria Journal Star editorial—my addition)

“What’s your business? How much are you owed by the taxpayers of Illinois for duties already performed, or for goods and services already provided? How late is the state in paying you? What percentage impact are those late payments having on your overall budget? What are you doing to cope? Layoffs? Bankruptcies? Closings? Who are the human victims of the state’s failure to pony up? Any specific anecdotes? Feel free to make any additional comments.”

“But most folks with any sense of fairness appreciate the injustice of being stiffed, of effectively working for slave wages, of the kind of fiscal immorality on display here.” (All brought about because the State Legislature refuses to follow the Constitution of the State of Illinois and balance the budget. Instead it spends, spends, spends! As I’ve said, it’s easy to spend other people’s money! Irresponsibility thy name is the Illinois General Assembly!—my addition)

“We’re trying to educate citizens so that they know what’s at stake and so they can make better choices than they have in the past at the ballot box.” (And these same editorial writers have supported some of the biggest spenders in their election bids including State Representative Michael Smith of Canton and State Senator David Koehler of Peoria. I believe he lives in Peoria although his home office in my 2007-2008 “Illinois Handbook of Government” lists his office as being in Pekin—my addition.)

Illinois State budget—possible cuts in the budget


I’ve decided to continue this series on the Illinois budget. When finished, I plan a post or two on Arizona and its new law concerning illegal immigration within the State. Then, I’ll return to previously planned posts.

The following information is from the “2010 Illinois Piglet Book” published jointly by The Illinois Policy Institute and Citizens Against Government Waste. I have selected brief sections from the book to give some idea of possible beginning cuts from the Illinois State budget. Don’t kid yourselves though. Cutting 13 billion dollars from a State budget that has been over budget for the six years I’ve been in Illinois is going to be very, very painful. Every program in the budget does “good” for someone or some thing. Every program has supporters who believe it is a necessary part of the State budget. However, the General Assembly has a constitutional responsibility to establish and proceed with a balanced budget. When the State does NOT have the money to spend, the only constitutional alternative is to CUT, CUT, CUT!

As I’ve said in previous posts:

“And yet, the talk at the beginning of the year was for a 13 billion dollar deficit. Deficit? Where is a deficit allowed in the planning and implementation of the fiscal year budget?

In tonight’s post, I’m going to give the specific target for the amount of money that needs to be cut from the proposed budget. This is based upon the Constitution, sound economic theory, and practical experience from following my own budget and being a member of a school board for 4 years in a State where the school boards could not spend any more money than was allocated to each school board.

The first criterion is: ABSOLUTELY NO money will be spent on any NEW program. It is the height of folly to spend money on new programs when there is not sufficient money to spend on already existing programs.

The second criterion is: Set the priorities for State spending from the HIGHEST priority to the lowest priority. One being the highest. 5000, or whatever the last priority is, being the lowest.

The third criterion is: Allocate money from the highest to the lowest priority to meet the needs of each priority until the estimated money runs out. If the allocations run out at the 3,450th priority, cut all of the less important priorities out of the budget.

The fourth criterion is: Adjust the allocations as needed, if needed. If more money needs to go from some higher priorities to lower priorities or money needs to be taken from lower priorities to be allocated to higher priorities, make those needed adjustments.

The fifth criterion and last criterion as well as the most important criterion is: Obey the Constitution of the State of Illinois. ‘Appropriations for a fiscal year shall not exceed funds estimated by the General Assembly to be available during that year.’ This is the TARGET! If that means cutting 13 billion dollars from the budget, then cut 13 billion dollars from the budget.

TARGET set! PROBLEM solved!

As I’ve said repeatedly, it is insanity to give more money to a spendaholic. NO NEW TAXES until the General Assembly repeatedly proves it can actually obey the Constitution of the State of Illinois and balance the budget—spending only the estimated funds of the State.”

I have left out the appropriate footnotes. Selected material from the “2010 Illinois Piglet Book”:

“The Illinois Policy Institute is a nonpartisan research organization dedicated to supporting free market principles and liberty-based public policy initiatives for a better Illinois. As a leading voice for economic liberty and government accountability, we engage policy makers, opinion leaders, and citizens on the state and local level. Please visit our website at http://www.illinoispolicy.org/.

Chicago Office
190 S. LaSalle Street
Suite 2130
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 312-346-5700
Fax: 312-346-5755” (page 1)

“Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to educating the American public about waste, mismanagement, and inefficiency in government. CAGW was founded in 1984 by the late industrialist J. Peter Grace and nationally-syndicated columnist Jack Anderson to build support for implementation of the Grace Commission recommendations and other waste-cutting proposals. Since its inception, CAGW has been at the forefront of the fight for efficiency, economy, and accountability in government.

CAGW has more than one million members and supporters nationwide. In a little over two decades, has helped save taxpayers $1.08 trillion through the implementation of Grace Commission findings and other recommendations.

CAGW’s official newsletter is Government WasteWatch, and the group produces special reports and monographs examining government waste and what citizens can do to stop it. CAGW is classified as a Section 501(c)(3) organization under the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and is recognized as a publicly-supported organization described in Section 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(A)(vi) of the code. Individuals, corporations, companies, associations, and foundations are eligible to support the work of CAGW through tax-deductible gifts.

1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Suite 1075
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: (202) 467-5300
http://www.cagw.org/” (page 1)

“The State of Illinois faces a historic budget crisis, caused by years of lawmakers’ fiscal profligacy. Chronic overspending on non-essential functions has stretched the state’s finances to the breaking point, a problem exacerbated by the recent economic downturn and falling tax revenue. Historically, legislators addressed such shortfalls by issuing bonds without building in corresponding spending restraint mechanisms. Such actions are untenable; the state cannot attempt to fund everything it wants today while passing the costs on to future generations. Future bond initiatives must be focused and have a clear repayment plan in order to avoid burdening future generations of Illinoisans with unprecedented debt. (Also, such a practice is patently unconstitutional according to the Illinois Constitution. Read “Article IX—Revenue, Section 9. State Debt” of the Illinois Constitution—my addition.)

Rather than addressing their spending addiction, many elected officials insist that the only way to solve the problem that they created is through raising taxes, further penalizing citizens. The federal government’s stimulus funds, intended to shore up the state’s faltering economy, merely delayed Illinois’s much-needed budget reforms. The state must pare back its portfolio so that it can better fulfill its basic obligations to its citizens. Every day, Illinoisans make hard choices about what to spend their money on, foregoing what they want for what they need because of budgetary constraints. Lawmakers should do the same. The state owes its residents the courtesy of responsible spending.” (page 2)

“Despite these hardships, the state of Illinois manages to pay a fair amount of money to higher education institutions for ongoing employee education … many of which are out-of state. For example, for ‘employee tuition and fees’ in fiscal year 2010:

• Mid-Continent University of Kentucky is receiving $84,690

• Ashford University of Iowa is receiving $45,162

• The University of Colorado is receiving $14,410

• The Grand Rapids Educational Center is receiving $13,403 and

• Indiana University is receiving $790.45

It is not clear how state employees attend classes at these distant educational institutions. Even if these classes were taken online, they should not be paid for with taxpayer dollars. Overall, the state has paid $1,049,639 from August 1, 2009 through January 7, 2010 in employee tuition and fees. If state employees are interested in taking classes to burnish their resumes or to bump themselves up to the next pay grade, it should be incumbent upon that individual to decide whether the long-term investment in additional schooling is worth the money. Many private employers subsidize education, but not with taxpayer dollars.” (page 6)

“The state is paying $1.4 million for the ‘Diversifying Higher Ed Faculty’ program, which did not exist in 2009. The governor initially requested $2.8 million, but later revised that figure. The purpose of the initiative is to increase the number of ‘traditionally underrepresented minority groups’ in faculty and staff positions in Illinois institutions of higher education and higher education governing boards. Although diversity is a laudable goal, it should not be a concern to the state when it is in such dire financial straits—and certainly not for $1.4 million.” (page 7)

“The state should be colorblind, treating all of its citizens equally. Unfortunately, in allocating tax dollars to specific ethnic service organizations, it runs the risk of looking, in the words of George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”, like ‘some are more equal than others.’

Certainly, many of these organizations are worthy causes; yet the unequal distribution of funds leaves some groups flush, and others underserved. Some ethnic groups should not receive more state money because they are better at applying for state grants.

Organizations should be self-sufficient, raising money from their communities in proportion to their need.

Some organizations that are receiving aid from the state in 2010 include:

• $3,544,368 to Jewish Child & Family Services

• $2,662,579 to the Chinese American Service League

• $1,189,387 to the Asian Human Services of Chicago

• $816,428 to the Chinese Mutual Aid Association

• $122,060 to the Asian Health Coalition of Illinois

• $53,309 to Korean American Community Services

• $27,498 to American Hispanic Wellness Services

• $20,006 to the Pui Tak Center in Chicago

• $19,562 to the American Indian Health Service

• $15,000 to the Asian American Institute

• $3,600 to Arab-American Family Services and

• $909 to the American Muslim Mission Center.” (pages 7 & 8)

“Each year, the state of Illinois distributes a considerable amount of money to various disease research groups, foundations, and patient advocacy organizations. Although such contributions are well-intentioned, and while many recipients are worthy causes, lawmakers and bureaucrats do not possess the knowledge to fairly allocate taxpayer funds to the best possible recipients. There is certainly no need to provide any support for national organizations, or their state chapters, when such groups have tens of millions of dollars in assets and receive funding from the federal government and private donations.

In 2010, the state of Illinois is spending:

• $3,150,000 for minority AIDS/ HIV prevention & outreach

• $979,229 to the AIDS Foundation of Chicago whose 2009 operating budget was $18.7 million

• $355,000 for the AIDS Hotline

• $200,000 to AIDSCare

• $1,994,000 for women’s ‘health promotion’ programs

• $1,801,238 to Easter Seals Metropolitan Chicago

• $1,201,837 to Easter Seals Joliet Region

• $319,427 to Easter Seals DuPage

• $47,930 to Easter Seals Central Illinois

• $1.2 million for a prostate cancer public awareness initiative

• $297,000 for prostate cancer screening and awareness

• $1 million for ALS (Lou Gehrig’s Disease)

• $73,992 to the American Lung Association of Illinois

• $21,000 to the American Diabetes Association which had a fund balance of $76.9 million as of December 31, 2007

• $17,700 to the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation which had a fund balance of $49.5 million as of June 30, 2008 and

• $12,600 to the National Kidney Foundation which had net assets of $18 million as of June 30, 2008

If Illinois residents feel inclined to make charitable contributions to causes, they should be free to give to those that are of personal interest and concern. As it stands, the Illinois government, often steered by well-connected lobbying teams, is picking winners and losers over a spectrum of causes—many of which are already generously funded.” (page 8)

“Illinois legislators repeatedly proclaim their concern for the environment, but it looks like the green that they’re most interested in is what’s in taxpayers’ wallets. In 2010, the state is lavishing money on conservation, and similar to the medical research grants, some of the funds are going to national organizations that already have tens of millions of dollars:

• $104,271 for The Nature Conservancy which had total net assets of $4.6 billion as of June 30, 2009

• $78,066 for Quail Unlimited and $706 for Tri-County Quail Unlimited which is ‘dedicated to the wise use and management of America’s wild quail, doves, upland game birds and other forms of wildlife’

• $71,579 for the Chicago Horticultural Society which manages the Chicago Botanic Garden

• $61,312 for Pheasants Forever which is ‘dedicated to the conservation of pheasants, quail and other wildlife through habitat improvements, public awareness, education and land management policies and programs’

• $39,631 for the Illinois Audubon Society

• $24,895 for the Morton Arboretum which had net assets of $182 million as of December 31, 2008

• $13,775 for the National Wild Turkey Foundation an organization that works ‘for the conservation of the wild turkey and preservation of our hunting heritage’ and which had a fund balance of $17 million as of August 31, 2009

• $2,890 to Friends of Ryerson Woods

• $2,400 for the Chicago Wilderness Trust

• $2,000 for the Lake Forest Open Lands

• $2,000 for the Illinois Raptor Center which doesn’t refer to an awesome ‘Jurassic Park’ in the state, but rather, a habitat for birds of prey and

• $1,000 for the Chicago Zoological Society, which manages Brookfield Zoo

Illinois’s generosity even expands across state lines. The Missouri Botanical Garden is receiving $60,198 and the Iowa Oil Company is receiving $12,945.” (pages 9 & 10)

“Chicago is known for its world-class entertainment, which draws talent from around the globe. Strangely, the state is still providing money to many of the city’s most prestigious organizations, despite their star power and expansive donor base. In 2010, Illinoisans are contributing $69,070 to the Chicago Symphony Orchestra which had a fund balance of $283 million on June 30, 2008; $61,500 to the Art Institute of Chicago which had a fund balance of $1 billion on June 30, 2008; $39,200 to the Ravinia Festival Association which had a fund balance of $116 million on September, 30, 2008; $30,700 to the Goodman Theater; $24,000 to the Steppenwolf Theatre Company which had a fund balance of $21 million on August 31, 2008; $18,800 to Hubbard Street Dance Company, and $407,300 to the Illinois Humanities Council which, according to its most recently released numbers, has a budget topping $2,000,000.” (pages 13 & 14)

“The same economic factors are at play in the transportation industry, where the state is passing out taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars to large businesses. Amtrak is receiving $28 million in fiscal year 2010 in a state subsidy for an operating deficit for intercity rail services and Amtrak will also receive a $1.5 billion subsidy in 2010 from the federal government. The broader population should not have to pay for the company’s mismanagement. The state should end its subsidies and encourage Amtrak to raise ticket prices for users of its services in Illinois. Amtrak should be bearing the full cost of operating its portion of the transportation system.

The Boeing Corporation is also pocketing $1,168,427. The world’s third-largest defense contractor with estimated revenues in 2008 of more than $60 billion should not have its hand out for taxpayer dollars in the state of Illinois.

Finally, a highly controversial transportation program is also receiving a significant amount of money. In fiscal year 2010, the state is providing $33,570,000 for reimbursement for reduced fares through the Regional Transportation Authority Service Boards. The RTA oversees the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) bus and rail system, Metra commuter rail, and Pace suburban bus service. The state’s funding distribution has recently been called into question through a class action lawsuit, where plaintiffs allege that minorities have been historically shortchanged.

Since 1965, seniors and low-income individuals with disabilities have received discounts on their fares. This program was expanded under former Gov. Blagojevich to provide free transportation on select routes for seniors and the disabled, despite warnings of the costs it would impose on the state budget. Such a program should only be available to individuals who truly need assistance, with means-testing implemented for fare reductions. The phrase ‘free rider problem’ exists for a reason, after all.” (page 15)

“The DCEO is paying the Illinois AFL-CIO Outreach $1,370,000 in fiscal year 2010 for ‘support services for unemployed.’ The DCEO is also paying the Illinois AFL-CIO $1,010,000 for the same purpose. With union dues so high, and the Illinois AFL-CIO representing over one million workers, members’ annual dues and contributions should be used for this purpose—not taxpayer dollars.

United Neighborhood is not union-affiliated, but it is following the same tactics, and is receiving $122,400. Its website says that it is ‘Modeled on the Saul Alinsky style of community organizing’ a frightening proposition for anyone who values ethics and civility in public discourse.” (page 18)

Remember also that the State of Illinois—our government—is the largest single employer in the State. No government that is the largest employer in its State is practicing fiscal responsibility. The State government must follow the Constitution of the State of Illinois and allocate its expenses to no more than the anticipated revenue for the fiscal year. Anything less is a violation of the State Constitution and a violation of the oath of office of every elected official who is responsible for over spending in the State budget. The fiscal practices of this State demonstrates that it’s “easy to spend other people’s money!” Our money!

It is past time that the voters of this State hold the representatives of this State accountable. For in the end, it is the voter who is responsible! Why would any responsible electorate continue to reelect spendthrifts election year after election year?

Illinois State budget nonsense


I’m changing my planned posts for tonight and for tomorrow night. Tonight’s post deals with a news story published in the Peoria Journal Star on May 13, 2010, page 1A and continued on page 7A. The headline: “Quinn pushing state to borrow.”

On Monday, April 26, 2010, I posted the following under the title of “Cut, Cut, Cut.”

“As in most States, the Governor of the State of Illinois presents a budget to the Illinois General Assembly and then the General Assembly passes an approved budget. In Illinois, that budget is supposed to be passed by the end of May and is supposed to be balanced based upon the following Constitutional provisions.

1) Article VIII—Finance, Section 2. State Finance, paragraph (a):

‘The Governor shall prepare and submit to the General Assembly … a State budget for the ensuing fiscal year. … Proposed expenditures shall not exceed funds estimated to be available for the fiscal year as shown in the budget.’ In short, if the estimated funds are 30 billion dollars, then the proposed expenditures SHALL NOT BE FOR MORE THAN 30 billion dollars! That is the wording of the Constitution!

2) Article VIII—Finance, Section 2. State Finance, paragraph (b):

‘The General Assembly by law shall make appropriations for all expenditures of public funds by the State. Appropriations for a fiscal year shall not exceed funds estimated by the General Assembly to be available during that year.’ In short, if the estimated funds are 30 billion dollars, then the proposed expenditures SHALL NOT BE FOR MORE THAN 30 billion dollars! That is the wording of the Constitution!

And yet, the talk at the beginning of the year was for a 13 billion dollar deficit. Deficit? Where is a deficit allowed in the planning and implementation of the fiscal year budget?”

“In tonight’s post, I’m going to give the specific target for the amount of money that needs to be cut from the proposed budget. This is based upon the Constitution, sound economic theory, and practical experience from following my own budget and being a member of a school board for 4 years in a State where the school boards could not spend any more money than was allocated to each school board.

The first criterion is: ABSOLUTELY NO money will be spent on any NEW program. It is the height of folly to spend money on new programs when there is not sufficient money to spend on already existing programs.

The second criterion is: Set the priorities for State spending from the HIGHEST priority to the lowest priority. One being the highest. 5000, or whatever the last priority is, being the lowest.

The third criterion is: Allocate money from the highest to the lowest priority to meet the needs of each priority until the estimated money runs out. If the allocations run out at the 3,450th priority, cut all of the less important priorities out of the budget.

The fourth criterion is: Adjust the allocations as needed, if needed. If more money needs to go from some higher priorities to lower priorities or money needs to be taken from lower priorities to be allocated to higher priorities, make those needed adjustments.

The fifth criterion and last criterion as well as the most important criterion is: Obey the Constitution of the State of Illinois. “Appropriations for a fiscal year shall not exceed funds estimated by the General Assembly to be available during that year.” This is the TARGET! If that means cutting 13 billion dollars from the budget, then cut 13 billion dollars from the budget.

TARGET set! PROBLEM solved!

As I’ve said repeatedly, it is insanity to give more money to a spendaholic. NO NEW TAXES until the General Assembly repeatedly proves it can actually obey the Constitution of the State of Illinois and balance the budget—spending only the estimated funds of the State.”

Quoting some portions of the above mentioned news story:

“Springfield—Gov. Pat Quinn said Wednesday that borrowing should be part of a state budget compromise and accused his Republican gubernatorial opponent, state Sen. Bill Brady, of creating ‘Chaos’ to defeat a pension-borrowing plan.” (page 1A)

“Lawmakers abruptly left Springfield (the State Capital—my addition) Friday without approving a spending plan for the fiscal year that begins July 1. There is no schedule for them to return to finish, but unless the Democrat-controlled Legislature passes a budget by May 31, they’ll need Republican votes to do so. (The budget is suppose to be passed by the end of May. If it is not, the number of votes needed to pass the budget increases—my addition)

Three times last week, the House rejected plans to borrow money to make a required $3.8 billion payment to the pension systems next year. Quinn said that was a mistake.

‘We have to borrow. I’ve said that from Day One,’ he said. “Every state in the union does this.’” (page 1A)

(I don’t know if his statement is true and, quite frankly, I doubt if he does. However, what every other State in the union does is IRRELEVANT! What is relevant is what the Constitution says about the budget and the Constitution specifically says: “The General Assembly by law shall make appropriations for all expenditures of public funds by the State. Appropriations for a fiscal year shall not exceed funds estimated by the General Assembly to be available during that year.” Do you read anything about borrowing money to balance the budget for the year in that statement? I don’t!—my addition)

“Quinn said the state can borrow money more cheaply than state vendors who are not being paid and are owed billions of dollars.” ( page 7A)

(Who isn’t paying State vendors? Who owes State vendors billions of dollars? You guessed it: the STATE of ILLINOIS owes these vendors billions of dollars!—my addition)

“No House Republicans voted for the borrowing plan.” (page 7A)

Do you suppose that the writers of the Illinois Constitution anticipated that some State Governors and an occasional State Legislature might attempt to finance a State budget through borrowing? You know they did! Here is everything written about borrowing in the Illinois Constitution in Article IX—Revenue, Section 9. State Debt:

“(a) No State debt shall be incurred except as provided in this Section. For the purpose of this section, ‘State debt’ means bonds or other evidences of indebtedness which are secured by the full faith and credit of the State or are required to be repaid, directly or indirectly, from tax revenue and which are incurred by the State, any department, authority, public corporation or quasi-public corporation of the State, any State college or university, or any other public agency created by the State, but not by units of local government or school districts.

(b) State debt for specific purposes may be incurred or the payment of State or other debt guaranteed in such amounts as may be provided either in a law passed by the vote of three-fifths of the members elected to each house of the General Assembly or in a law approved by a majority of the electors (eligible registered voters—my addition) voting on the question at the next general election following passage. Any law providing for the incurring or guaranteeing of debt shall set forth the specific purposes and the manner of repayment.

(c) State debt in anticipation of revenues to be collected in a fiscal year may be incurred by law in an amount not exceeding 5% of the State’s appropriation for that fiscal year. Such debt shall be retired (paid for—my addition) from the revenues realized in that fiscal year. ( This is a key provision for the proposed “borrowing should be part of a state budget compromise.” The borrowing being proposed is in anticipation OF NOT HAVING SUFFICIENT REVENUE TO PAY OUTSTANDING BILLS. It is NOT based upon “anticipation of revues to be collected!” If it were, there would be no need to place it within the budget as borrowing! It is being proposed because it is believed that the STATE WILL NOT have the revenue EVER in this fiscal year!—my addition)

(d) State debt may be incurred by law in an amount not exceeding 15% of the State’s appropriations for that fiscal year to meet deficits cause by emergencies of failures of revenue. Such law shall provide that the debt be repaid within one year of the date it is incurred. (This “emergencies of failures of revenue” MUST refer to revenue that had been anticipated in the obeying of the constitutionally required “Appropriations for a fiscal year shall not exceed funds estimated by the General Assembly to be available during that year.” or else the Revenue Article would have directly allowed borrowing to match expenditures. In others words, during the course of the fiscal year, some unforeseen drop in anticipated revenues occurred that makes it improbable, if not impossible, to balance the budget during the course of that fiscal year. Even in the case of unforeseen emergencies, the debt MUST be repaid within one year of the borrowing because of the unforeseen emergency. This allowed borrowing CAN NOT EVER be the case before the budget is approved for that fiscal year. CAN NOT EVER BE THE CASE!—my addition)

(e) State debt may be incurred by law to refund outstanding State debt if the refunding debt matures within the term of the outstanding State debt.

(f) The State, departments, authorities, public corporations and quasi-public corporations of the State, the State colleges and universities and other public agencies created by the State, may issue bonds or other evidences of indebtedness which are not secured by the full faith and credit or tax revenues of the State nor required to be repaid directly or indirectly, from tax revenue, for such purposes and in such amounts as may be authorized by law.” (This can’t apply to the present proposal because no sane lender would lend money to this State at this time without a “full faith and credit” guarantee or without the knowledge that the debt would be repaid with tax revenues. The State is in debt from years of overspending and they would be unable to secure an unsecured loan for billions of dollars. Not in this universe!—my addition)

The above is the complete provisions of Section 9. Show me where it is Constitutional for the State to include new, secured debt as a part of a new fiscal year budget. It is NOT CONSTITUTIONAL!

If in November, the voters of this State elect the present Governor and members of the State Legislature who want to continue our history of debt and increased taxation to allow increasingly out-of-control State spending, then the voters of this State deserve what will happen to this State!

As I’ve said repeatedly, it is insanity to give more money to a spendaholic. NO NEW TAXES until the General Assembly repeatedly proves it can actually OBEY the Constitution of the State of Illinois and balance the budget—spending only the ESTIMATED funds of the State.

DON’T TREAD ON ME! Three months remaining!


I’ve had the following website for awhile but have not yet checked it out. I’m posting it tonight, in part, to remind myself to check it out.

Please sign the petition at website link to Repeal ObamaCare!http://revereamerica.org/

I heard on a Salem News Network radio report at 6:55 AM on 4/12/10 that a Canadian citizen was indicted in Canada for refusing to pay his income tax because the Canadian government financially pays for the MURDER of unborn babies. It seems that I am not the only one who refuses to finance the MURDER of unborn children.

“Early flags designed for use in the American colonies reflected the Old World origin of the colonists. In the British colonies many flags were adaptations of the British Union Jack (see Flags, National). The colors red, white, and blue, which symbolized colonial unity, were first used in a flag in New England in 1737. The flag was blue with a white canton quartered by a red cross. In one upper quarter of the canton was a globe symbolizing the New World.

As relations with Great Britain became more strained, the colonists designed a large number of flags expressive of their political sentiments and ideals. A favorite emblematic device in the flags of the southern colonies was a rattlesnake, usually depicted as coiled and ready to strike and having 13 rattles. In South Carolina it was emblazoned on a yellow flag and was accompanied by the inscription ‘dont tread on me.’” Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007 [DVD]. Redmond, Wa: Microsoft, Corporation, 2006.

I don’t know about others, but I have issues where I have figuratively “drawn a line in the sand.” I will not obey laws that are in direct violation with GOD’S will. One of those lines is being required to support the MURDER of American citizens by law—in this case, the MURDER of unborn babies financed by the federal government. This is an instance of “DON’T TREAD ON ME.” GOD’S law supersedes any man-made law!

I have, for a long time, taken the position that I don’t give my money to governments any sooner than required. Consequently, I owe taxes to the federal government every year when I file my income tax. Also, because I prepare taxes for others, I usually don’t file until the August 15th extension deadline.

This year, as normal, I owe taxes to the federal government. This year, I WILL NOT FILE! AND I WILL TELL THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT JUST THAT!

The question is when. If you’ve read my book, you know that 13 is the prime number for The Black Sword. It is also mine. As it happens, August 13th is on a Friday—Friday the 13th. Would there be any better day to say to the federal government—DON’T TREAD ON ME; DON’T TREAD ON GOD’S LAW!

Consequently, that’s the day I will notify the federal government that I refuse to help finance the MURDER of unborn babies. I plan to write the same on my federal 1040 and mail it to the government on that day without any financial information. I will also post a copy of the 1040 on my blog that morning.

I WILL NOT SUPPORT A GOVERNMENT THAT REQUIRES ME TO HELP FINANCE THE MURDER OF UNBORN BABIES!

DON’T TREAD ON ME!

DON’T TREAD ON GOD’S LAW!

Three months and counting!

“Jesus said to them, ‘If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a MURDERER (my capitalization—my addition) from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a LIAR (my capitalization—my addition) and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.’” John 8: 42-47 (NIV)

“‘Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the WILL (my capitalization—my addition) of my FATHER (my capitalization—my addition) who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you EVILDOERS (my capitalization—my addition)!’” Matthew 7: 21-23 (NIV)

“… and you know that no MURDERER (my capitalization—my addition) has eternal life in him.” I John 3: 15b (NIV)

“Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who OBEY GOD’S COMMANDMENTS (my capitalization—my addition) and hold to the testimony of Jesus.” Revelation 12: 17 (NIV)

“Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not SUBMIT (my capitalization—my addition) to GOD’S RIGHTEOUSNESS (my capitalization—my addition).” Romans 10: 3 (NIV)

“But Peter and John replied, ‘Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to OBEY (my capitalization—my addition) you rather than GOD (my capitalization—my addition). For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.’” Acts 4: 19-20 (NIV)

“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.” Galatians 6: 7-8 (NIV)

Republican primary and caucus results from Indiana and Utah


From National Public Radio—http://www.npr.org/

“Former Senator Dan Coats, an Indiana Republican who left office in 1998, successfully launched the first phase of his comeback Tuesday, winning the GOP Senate nomination for the seat being vacated by two-term Democratic incumbent Evan Bayh (which means that Evan Bayh was elected in 1998—my addition).

With 76 percent of precincts reporting, Coats has 40 percent of the vote. State Senator Marlin Stutzman, a strong conservative with significant tea party support, finished second with 30 percent (which was much better than he was originally thought to be able to achieve—my addition), and former Representative John Hostettler, another conservative, trailed with 22 percent. Two other candidates shared the remainder.

From the outset, Coats, 66, was the choice of the Washington GOP establishment, but some worried about his post-Senate career, which was mostly spent as a D.C. lobbyist. He also served as ambassador to Germany under President George W. Bush.

Coats will face Representative Brad Ellsworth in November. Bayh announced his retirement too late in the process for Democrats to hold a primary; party leaders will select Ellsworth, a pro-life and pro-gun moderate conservative who cast a widely watched vote in favor of the health care bill (which means he is NOT pro-life!—my addition), as their nominee on May 15.

Coats made it clear, in accepting the nomination, that he would go after President Obama as well as Ellsworth:

In light of the damage that President Obama’s policies already have done to the United States of America, as Hoosiers we cannot afford to be any part of it.

We cannot and we will not stand idly by and watch as our personal liberties are diluted, our national security diminished, and our fiscal health destroyed.

And we absolutely cannot afford to elect someone to the United States Senate who will enable this radical move to the left. Folks, anyone who has voted to reappoint Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the House cannot be trusted to protect Indiana’s interests.

We are going to confront Congressman Ellsworth and his liberal Washington allies because all Hoosiers, including those who may have voted for him in the past, deserve to have a clear choice in November.

Senator John Cornyn, the chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee who went out on a limb early by recruiting Coats for the contest, was jubilant.

The contrast in this campaign could not be more clear for voters in Indiana this November. Brad Ellsworth was hand-picked by Washington Democrat party bosses because they know he will serve as another rubberstamp for President Obama and Harry Reid’s deeply unpopular agenda if he is elected to the U.S. Senate. Ellsworth has voted with Nancy Pelosi 81 percent of the time in Congress, and he has eagerly helped the Democrats in Washington pass their massive health spending bill and failed stimulus debacle.

Hari Sevugan, the press secretary for the Democratic National Committee, saw it differently:

In Dan Coats, national Republicans got who they wanted, and who they got is an establishment Republican steeped in the culture of Washington; a super-lobbyist beholden to special interests for his fortune. From Wall Street to big oil, Dan Coats has acquired $2.5 million in assets and an income of more than $800,000 by marketing his services to the highest bidder and securing bailouts for Wall Street. Dan Coats may represent national Republicans to a tee, but he doesn’t represent the values of Hoosiers anymore.

(As I said on my April 30th post, Dan Coats is endorsed by Indiana Right to Life according to his website. Therefore, although I was supporting Marlin Stutzman in the primary, I certainly support Dan Coats over a Democrat who voted for Nationalize healthcare and the provision permitting the federal government to pay, either directly or indirectly, for the MURDER of American citizens who have not yet been born—my addition.)

In the overwhelmingly Republican 4th Congressional District, which is being vacated by Representative Steve Buyer (R), the GOP nomination went to Secretary of State Todd Rokita (R), who easily topped a 13-candidate primary field. Rokita is all but certain to win in November.

In the 5th CD, veteran Representative Dan Burton (R) survived a tough battle for renomination against six challengers for the seat he first won in 1982.

Ellsworth’s 8th CD seat will be contested by state Representative Trent Van Haaften (D) and surgeon Larry Bucshon (R).

And in the 9th CD, where Representative Baron Hill (D) is seeking re-election, the news of the day is that former Representative Mike Sodrel will not be Hill’s GOP opponent for the fifth consecutive time. He finished third in the primary to attorney Todd Young.”

At the present time, five of Indiana’s nine seats in the House of Representative are held by Democrats. Hopefully, the Republicans can win one or two of these five seats while maintaining control of the other four. An important contest to watch is the 8th District where the incumbent—Brad Ellsworth—is running for the Senate. He is a second term member who won his second term by a 65% total and, of course, won in 2006 for the first time when the House of Representatives changed to control by the Democrats.

From Fox News— http://www.foxnews.com/

“Republican U.S. Senator Bob Bennett of Utah has been ousted in his bid to serve a fourth term after failing to make it out of the Utah GOP convention.

Attorney Mike Lee and businessman Tim Bridgewater are the remaining Republican candidates after Saturday’s vote. After a third round of voting, neither nominee received 60 percent of the vote, so both will head to the Utah primary on June 22.

Bennett was a distant third in the second round of voting among nearly 3,500 delegates, netting about 27 percent of the vote.

Wiping away tears, Bennett called the political atmosphere ‘toxic’ and said it’s, ‘Clear some of the votes I’ve cast have added to that toxic environment, looking back with one or two minor exceptions, I wouldn’t cast any (vote—my addition) any differently, even if I knew it would cost me my career.’

The three-term senator was targeted by Tea Party activists and other groups for supporting the first traunch (I don’t know what word is meant here. My spell check said it is misspelled. I could not find such a word in my dictionary. I, therefore, left it as it is—my addition.) of TARP, or Troubled Assets Relief Program.

Bennett, 76, is the first incumbent to lose his seat in Washington this year. (Of course, he has not lost it yet. His term expires when Congress convenes in January of 2011—my addition.)

Critics also say Bennett broke a promise he made during his initial campaign to only serve two terms. He was vying for his fourth term.

Aides to Bennett blame outside groups for ‘distorting’ his position on multiple issues, such as the auto bailouts, the stimulus and health care reform. Bennett voted against all of those measures. (It’s relatively easy these days to check the accuracy of what is said in relation to votes since the votes are posted on the internet—my addition)

Bennett isn’t the only Republican lawmaker in trouble as other moderate candidates across the country find themselves being abandoned by GOP voters in favor of those backed by Tea Party activists, such as with Senate races in Arizona, Kentucky and New Hampshire. (Does this mean that the Tea Party is having an impact on elections!—my addition)

In Florida, Governor Charlie Crist decided to run for Senate as an independent rather than face an almost certain primary defeat at the hands of Tea Party favorite Marco Rubio, Florida’s former state House speaker.

DNC Chairman Tim Kaine emphasized the Tea Partiers’ role in recent primary politics.

‘This is just the latest battle in the corrosive (His opinion!—my addition) Republican intra-party civil war that has resulted in the Tea Party devouring two Republicans in just as many weeks,’ Kaine said. ‘If there was any question before, there should now be no doubt that the Republican leadership has handed the reigns to the Tea Party.’ (NOT true! If anything, the Tea Party has grabbed the reigns away from some RINO party leaders who are supporting candidates who are NOT conservative enough. GOOD for them!—my addition)

Bennett’s seven Republican rivals contend he no longer has the credentials to represent ‘ultraconservative’ Utah.

Lee, 38, and Bridgewater (I plan to check him out soon—my addition), 49, have campaigned largely by saying they’re better suited to pare down government spending than Bennett.

‘I will fight every day as your U.S. senator for limited government, to end the cradle-to-grave entitlement mentality, for a balanced budget, to protect our flag, our borders and our national security and for bills that can be read before they receive a final vote in congress,’ Lee said in his convention speech.

The opposition to Bennett is specific, and can’t be chalked up solely to a general anti-incumbency fervor. Neither of Utah’s two Republican congressmen are at risk of losing their seats, and Republican Gov. Gary Herbert doesn’t have any serious challengers.

But Bennett’s vote to bail out Wall Street left many Republicans feeling he had become too much of a Washington insider. He's also come under fire for co-sponsoring a bipartisan bill mandating health insurance coverage and for aggressively pursuing earmarks.

In Arizona, Senator John McCain is in a tough primary fight against former Representative J.D. Hayworth, a conservative talk-radio host. In Kentucky, Rand Paul, the son of libertarian Representative Ron Paul of Texas, is gaining momentum in his challenge against the GOP establishment’s pick of Secretary of State Trey Grayson to replace retiring U.S. Senator Jim Bunning.”

In New Hampshire, former Attorney General Kelly Ayotte is battling three Republican challengers to fill the seat being vacated by Republican Judd Gregg.”