Vernon Township Republicans

2008 VTRCC Election Results

2008-02-26T19:46:00Z

I am happy to announce that the Vernon Township Republican Central Committee remains in good hands.

At Monday evening's 2008 Vernon Township Republican Central Committee election, the Conservative Leadership Slate of candidates headed by incumbent Chairman, Don Castella won election to all four executive offices:

Chairman: Don Castella 70%

Michael Kurman 30%

Vice-Chairman: Eric Burgess - 100%

Secretary: Elise Bouc - 100%

Treasurer: H. Shaw Clifton - 100%

Our committee members look forward to serving Vernon Township's Republican voters and candidates. As chairman, I intend to continue rebuilding the Vernon Township Republican Party by filling open precinct committeeman slots and recruiting Republican candidates, volunteers, election judges, and pollwatchers. I also intend to improve our communications, outreach, and fund-raising activities.

We face significant challenges in the 2008 General Election campaigns, and I look forward to meeting those challenges through hard work, careful planning, and better use of modern voter communication tools.

I Agree With Dan Venturi about the Republican Platform

2006-11-14T19:20:00Z

My Fellow Republicans,

In yesterday's Daily Herald, Dan Venturi was quoted regarding the Republican Assembly of Lake County, “If you don’t agree with their [RALC] principles, then you’re a bad Republican.” I note his attempt to take criticism of his actions and decisions personally and disingenuously turn the discussion into one about supposed ideological differences rather than sticking to the issues raised about his decisions, actions, or omissions as Lake County Republican Chairman.

If we analyze his statement in light of the clearly defined RALC Statement of Beliefs and Principles, which is entirely in agreement with the Illinois and national Republican Platforms, Dan Venturi is effectively admitting that if you don't agree with Republican Platform principles, then you're a bad Republican.

And I agree. But our party problems go way beyond petty infighting.

The actions of Dan Venturi and others to further divide the Republican Party in Lake County by targeting RALC members in Precinct Committeeman elections, and pursuing exclusion of these loyal Republican activists from Central Committee meetings serve no constructive purpose. Unless the Central Committee corrects this error, the parties involved settle their differences amicably through frank and open discussions, and unite to work together in pursuit of our common goals, we can look forward to continued erosion of Republican representation in Lake County and Illinois government.

The statewide election debacle we have witnessed in Illinois for the past year has culminated in arguably the worst Republican Party defeat since 1936. However, this election has also demonstrated the willingness of voters to support Republican Platform candidates and reject Democrat-Lite Republican candidates who thumb their noses at Republican Platform principles. It is also clear that Republican candidates can win in Illinois by clearly communicating our Republican Platform positions on issues to the voters, as current and past candidates Peter Roskam, Peter Fitzgerald, Don Manzullo, Chris Lauzen, Matt Murphy and others have ably demonstrated. If this election proves anything, it shows that it is idiotic to suggest for one moment that we can beat Democrats by imitating them. We must stop helping the Democrats to brand mainstream Republicans as extremists when it is they who are at odds with America's natural majority opinions.

We can and must communicate OUR Republican Platform positions of strong national security, smaller more efficient government, lower taxes, personal accountability, and family values to voters constantly by every available means including in particular our actions as elected officials, not just during the noisy campaign weeks leading up to elections. We must develop a specific issues-oriented agenda that clearly reflects our philosophy and professionally communicate it to the party faithful and the voters. We must seek to educate and empower Republicans willing to advance our Platform as volunteers, party officials and candidates. We must instill our party membership with a strong sense of identity and belonging to an ideological movement that offers real solutions based on a coherent philosophy, not just a partisan political faction that cheerleads for its brand of greedy, power-hungry ambition.

The message from Illinois voters and the U.S. Attorney is clear: It is over for the dishonest political insiders, the corrupt politicians and interchangeable lobbyists who collude with their opponents and special interests, and the old guard 'Ryan wing' of the Illinois Republican Party who keep trying to look like they want to win by fielding recycled old guard candidates. The sooner we all grasp this reality, address the pressing real issues that confront us all, and embrace reform in our party at all levels, the sooner the voters and willing volunteers will return to our fold.

We are faced with the task of rebuilding the Illinois Republican Party from top to bottom. This process will entail finding new, principled leadership unblemished by corruption or scandal that is willing to recognize past strategic and tactical mistakes and correct them. We must rejuvenate and motivate the grass-roots political organization right down to block captains, and finish the job of cleaning our political house of corrupt, self-serving politicians who place their financial interests above the public interest. Unless we stop equivocating and get on with this process expeditiously, we can look forward to many more years of trying to put a happy face on our political decline.

I welcome further constructive discussion on these issues.

Sincerely,

Don Castella
Chairman
Vernon Township Republican Central Committee

Illinois and National Marriage Debates Converge

2006-06-08T02:13:00Z

By Don Castella, Chairman – Vernon Township Republican Central Committee

Monday, the U.S. Senate took up debate on the Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA), which if ratified, would amend our U.S. Constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, thereby protecting the institution of marriage nationwide from the ravages of activist judges and homosexual attacks on morality.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle are lining up for or against this proposed amendment. As usual, the ideological spin-doctors have been busy, particularly on the left where a propaganda campaign to smear the overwhelming majority of Americans who support traditional marriage as bigots and homophobes continues unabated. Some leading Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton (D-MSM), have taken the hypocritical stand that they want to protect marriage, but oppose the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Sen. John McCain (R-Gang of 14) claims he opposes the MPA on Constitutional grounds:

"I will vote against it because I believe very strongly, first of all, in the sanctity of union between man and woman, but I also believe that the states should make these decisions."

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) – Fox News Sunday, May 21, 2006

For once, this author agrees with the maverick Senator from Arizona, and will take his statement as his word that protection of marriage is a responsibility best left to the several states. As an Illinois citizen, I actively support the grass roots Protect Marriage Illinois ballot question, which would ask the Illinois General Assembly to amend the Illinois Constitution in order to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, thereby protecting the institution of marriage statewide from the ravages of activist judges and homosexual attacks on morality.

I believe that supporters of the national MPA have the right idea, but are not necessarily pursuing it in the right venue. While one can question the timing and scope of the MPA, its intent is clearly a positive one, aimed at defending society’s most fundamental institution, the family. I agree with this statement President Bush made in a weekly radio address:

"Marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all."

However, it is clear that the framers of the U.S. Constitution, who believed in a limited federal government role, purposely left many powers to the states, realizing that many decisions are best left up to individual states to uniquely decide for themselves. Ballot initiatives calling for state constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage, have passed by overwhelming margins in nineteen states, and are pending in many more.

The effort to amend state constitutions nationwide to protect traditional marriage is now well under way. However, a nasty problem has arisen in seven states, where activist judges in California, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New York, and Washington, have already taken the law into their own hands and legislated their personal agenda from the bench to thwart the overwhelming will of the people. It is for this reason that a national MPA initiative is underway in the U.S. Senate.

While it is still too early to determine when or if the MPA initiative will be successful, it is clear that the national level debate will serve to shine the light of truth and inquiry on this very important topic, thereby assisting the grass roots marriage protection efforts already underway in many states. Such attention can only serve to energize the large base of family values voters. Here in Illinois, more conservative family-values oriented candidates, particularly congressional candidates, may well benefit from increased attention to the defense of traditional marriage issue.

It will be interesting to see how this battle between the fringe secular left-homosexual activist coalition and the majority of American voters unwinds. Currently, Illinois homosexual activists have mounted an active campaign to disenfranchise Illinois voters by attempting to remove the statewide Protect Marriage Illinois question from November 7 ballots. Let’s hope they do not succeed or decide to follow their Massachusetts counterparts by seeking to harass and smear the thousands of caring PMI petition signers by publishing a hit list of petition signers’ names and addresses. If the PMI ballot initiative survives this onslaught, the will of Illinois voters will likely prevail over the anti-morality minority.

Senator Chris Lauzen: Reckless Sale of State Assets

2006-06-05T20:50:00Z

Home · About Chris · The Issues · Get Involved · Media Center · Events · Donate · Blog · Contact Us

Reckless Sale of State Assets

By Senator Chris Lauzen

One of the saddest personal tragedies in life is to see a person addicted to alcohol, drugs, or gambling destroy the financial base upon which his family relies. The way it usually goes is an initial euphoria of hype as he doubles the mortgage debt to mask the problem. The next step is running all his credit cards so high that his credit rating is severely damaged. Eventually, he begins to sell his most marketable family assets at flea market prices. And, during all this time, he refuses to admit that he even has a problem.

The same is true about the current administration of the State of Illinois. Their addiction is to excess government spending. George Ryan, who was known as a prolific spender, increased state spending by $2.5B during his four years. Rod Blagojevich has increased spending by $3.5B-more than $1B more over four budgets. Both are in denial that they have done anything wrong. The reason why this is so important to all of us is that we will eventually have to pay back the mortgage, the credit cards, and will lack cash-producing assets that he sold cheaply.

Careful readers of this publication are already aware of the doubling of the state general obligation debt in the past four years to over $20B. You are aware of the accumulation of unpaid Medicaid provider bills that currently exceed a staggering $2 Billion that has New York credit rating company Fitch warning Illinois that they will downgrade our finances. Now we're starting to see the final desperate step in this "financial meltdown" pattern, i.e. the sale of state assets that have been paid for by generations of taxpayers and are now being offered at rummage sale prices.

For example, thank goodness that Attorney General Lisa Madigan stopped the ill-advised sale of the State of Illinois Building to a group of French investors about a year ago.

The state lottery is "on the blocks" as a bargaining chip in the negotiations to keep Reverend/Senator James Meeks from splitting the statewide Democrat vote in the current governor's race. Twenty years after the lottery was sold to unsuspecting state taxpayers on the false promise that "The lottery will go to education", apparently my friend Senator Meeks has fallen for that one again!

It is simply amazing to me that the Illinois Student Assistance Commission which holds a portfolio of $3,500,000,000 of student loans that you and I have paid our taxes to develop for decades, is being proportionately sold for $300M-$500M. If the portion-to-be-sold is practically given away for the equivalent of $350M, that transaction represents yard sale prices of a dime on the dollar (10¢ for what is clearly worth $1). This irresponsible fiscal decision is like selling a home that is worth $250,000 for $25,000. This isn't petty theft, its grand larceny! Don't be surprised when you see the investors who ultimately steal this asset show up on the list of "experts" who provided the incredibly low valuation and also show up on the Governor's campaign contribution reports.

But the real whopper is the sale of the tollway. This asset belongs to the people of this region and has been paid for by tollpayers for over a half century in nickels, dimes, and quarters. What right does an obviously reckless Governor have to sell this regional asset and distribute the money among political allies and to spend it around the rest of the state? This is a ransacking and pillaging of the Suburban region to benefit Chicago and Downstate.

On Wednesday of this week, I listened to more than two hours of testimony where one of the preliminary estimates was that the tollway is worth $15-$25B, according to the most prestigious investment banking firm Goldman Sachs. Yet, on May 8, 2006 in "Barron's Financial News On-Line", it was reported that investment banking firms "led by Goldman Sachs, are descending on state capitols" to buy up tollway opportunities. I learned painfully a long time ago not to play poker for money with people a lot smarter than me. As I applied the toll increases permitted under the Chicago Skyway sale of 7% per year for the first 11 years and approximately 5% for the remaining 64 years to the proposed 75-year Illinois Tollway Lease, my rough calculation for the discounted cash flow at a reasonable 5% internal rate of return yielded a lease price closer to $35B. We may not see the fangs and claws yet, but I feel like the three little piggies locked in the blood-thirsty glare of that big bad wolf! Let's not go there.

The result of personal addiction is despair, disappointment, and destruction. The result of public addiction to excessive spending and reckless sale of the state assets is further backbreaking tax increases.

Paid for by Friends for Lauzen
P.O. Box 7036 Aurora, Illinois 60507
p: (630) 264-2419 f: (630) 264-1566 e:campaign@lauzen.com
Privacy & Security Statement

Blagojevich Gambles Children's Future on Lottery Sale

2006-05-25T16:09:00Z

Election-year plan trades revenue stream for immediate cash
By Don Castella, Chairman: Vernon Township Republican Central Committee

Since its 1974 inception, the Illinois State Lottery has provided gambling revenues of about $13 Billion to the Illinois Common School Fund (K-12) (NASPL data). Currently, the Illinois Lottery generates more than $600 Million net annually for Illinois schools. Under this Blagojevich proposal the Illinois Lottery would be sold or leased and its education revenue stream would vanish entirely.

In a May 23 news release, the Blagojevich administration stated: "Under this proposal, the Illinois Lottery would either enter into a long-term lease with a private entity or conduct an Initial Public Offering that would generate approximately $10 billion in proceeds." Under terms of his proposal, "...the lease would provide $4 billion towards a new $6 billion funding plan for schools over the next four years and guarantee a $650 million annuity to the Common School Fund until Fiscal Year 2025."

Ostensibly, the plan is the result of a political deal struck between the governor and potential third-party challenger State Senator Rev. James Meeks. Rev Meeks has apparently agreed not to run for governor in return for the governor concocting a deal that would throw more money at the broken illinois K-12 school system for a while, but less money in the long run. This proposal is just another plan by the governor to spend future revenues today, further mortgaging the future of Illinois children and pushing Illinois toward a looming fiscal crisis in school funding.

Rather than address structural and spending problems in Illinois bloated, inefficient, and corrupt Big Education system, this plan creates new spending initiatives and increments programs that will require additional revenue sources after the current governor leaves office, conveniently shifting the political burden for real reform and fiscal solutions to future administrations and IL General Assemblies. While the plan proposes a few neeeded reforms, it furthers the tacit assumption that only more money can bail out failing school systems. If that assumption were true, the growth in Illinois per-pupil K-12 spending witnessed already should have yielded more positive results.

What many Illinois school districts sorely need is to face reality and think outside the boxes they have constructed. In some cases, particularly rural and downstate, major reforms or restructuring may well be needed to address education funding problems. While school choice and voucher proposals have languished due to lack of support in these same rural areas, urban school students would benefit greatly from increased school competition.

Once again we witness Rod Blagojevich proposing a major change in Illinois fiscal policy without significant public debate. That is, unless you call a backroom powow with an inconvenient potential challenger public debate. One wonders why the legislature was not afforded an opportunity to discuss this plan's merits until the Fall Veto Session. Readers will recall that Senator Meeks was the State Senate's leading proponent for the so-called HB 750 'tax-swap', which failed again last summer.

One must ask how this proposal would address the huge unfunded education pension liability that this and past administrations have precipitated. Inquiring minds also wonder if this proposal merely sets up Illinois for an impending fiscal criis that only a tax-swap can address. Such proposals which seek to further short-change collar-county schools and taxpayers, have not gained widespread support. Usually these tax-swap proposals include sizable increases in corporate taxes, service taxes, and other new taxes tied to token decreases in property taxes. Tax increases of this magnitude would ensure that Illinois remains near the bottom of all states in job creation, business, and population growth

Clearly, Governor Blagojevich is trying to play both sides of the political street... by proposing to raise education spending during an election year, while supposedly holding the line on tax increases. The Governor is gambling with our childrens' futures, and that is one Lottery ticket Illinois voters should not buy.

2006 Vernon Township Republican Picnic July 22, 2006

2006-05-24T01:01:00Z

Vernon Township Republican Central Committee

What: 2006 Vernon Township Republican Picnic

When: Noon - 6:00 pm on Saturday, July 22, 2006

Where: Vernon Township - Prairie View Park Picnic Shelter, 16652 N. Buffalo Grove Road, Buffalo Grove, IL 60089

To All our Republican Friends,

I am pleased to announce the 2006 Vernon Township Republican Picnic, to be held from Noon - 6:00 pm on Saturday, July 22, 2006 at the Vernon Township - Prairie View Park Picnic Shelter, 16652 N. Buffalo Grove Road (formerly Port Clinton Rd), Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 (Just east of intersection of Main St and Buffalo Grove Road) Link to MAP HERE. The Picnic Shelter is adjacent to the Vernon Township - Prairie View Park Pool.

This event is sponsored and organized by the Vernon Township Republican Central Committee. Republican Candidates for office in Vernon Township and Lake County are invited to come and meet the public and Vernon Township Republicans.

Snacks, Food and Beverages will be available. Games, Prizes, and Fun for all.

I hope you will mark July 22nd on your calendar and plan to join us at this get-acquainted event.

Please include this event in your published schedules and invite others to join us for a great time.

Regards,

Don Castella
Chairman
Vernon Township Republican Central Committee

Vernon Township - Prairie View Park Pool

Paid for by the Vernon Township Republican Central Committee. A copy of our report filed with the State Board of Elections and the County Clerk is (or will be) available for purchase from the State Board of Elections, Springfield, Illinois, and from the Lake County Clerk Waukegan, Illinois.

P.O. Box 96 Lincolnshire, IL 60069-0096 – Phone 847-275-5542 - Fax 847-557-5081

Email: info@vernongop.org URL: www.vernongop.org Blog: weblog.vernongop.org

Chicago Tribune Story: "District takes aim at teens' Web posts"

2006-05-18T18:39:00Z

Vernongop Editor's Note: Libertyville/Vernon Hills H.S.Dist. 128 message to students: We determine which of your behaviors and Internet speech are appropriate, not you, your parents, or society. Reporter Andrew Wang reports in a Chicago Tribune story today that Libertyville/Vernon Hills High School District 128 is considering the adoption of rules that would make students subject to disciplinary action including suspension of extracurricular activity privileges for items they post on blogs or Internet websites like MySpace.com.

On its face, this action sets up High School District 128 as the final arbiter of student speech and behavior, even outside of the school day and the school grounds. District 128 also seeks to extend authority to itself for the enforcement of behavior standards that control and affect students' lives 24/7. By what authority does the school district seek to set such standards that would restrict student expression and control recreational and social behavior? How does the District propose to enforce such rules in an even-handed and meaningful way?

The Internet is a very big 'place' and affords a multitude of opportunities for behaviors and speech the District could no-doubt find unacceptable. Perhaps the District could enlist the co-operation of Internet search engines and web hosting companies in its efforts to police the Internet as some governments have done. One wonders how comfortable the District Internet speech/behavior regulation authority will be when it finds itself in the company of repressive governments like China and Saudi Arabia as it seeks to restrict and control student expression.

It sounds to this writer like the District administrators should spend a few weeks in one of the District's own History or Civics classes studying the U.S. Constitution, particularly the First Amendment. That is, assuming that the District curriculum still includes these important lessons about our how the Constitution protects our freedoms and exercise of fundamental rights.

One wonders when school administrators will simply remove the students from their parents' custody altogether and impose their own totalitarian child-rearing agenda. How many parents are ready to abrogate their parental authority to the government education industry by allowing this intrusion into their children's lives and personal expression to go unchallenged?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

District takes aim at teens' Web posts

Schools say MySpace within their space too

By Andrew L. Wang
Tribune staff reporter
Published May 18, 2006

"A north suburban school district could become one of the first in the state to adopt rules holding students accountable for what they post on blogs or social-networking Web sites like MySpace.com.

The school board of Community High School District 128, which includes Libertyville and Vernon Hills High Schools, is expected to vote Monday on a change to student conduct codes that would make evidence of "illegal or inappropriate behavior" posted on the sites grounds for disciplinary action.

"We're really making parents and students aware that they would be accountable" for what goes online, said Associate Supt. Prentiss Lea.

He said posting a photo of bad behavior on a Web site is the same as if a student dropped the picture on his desk.

Some students chafe at the notion of school officials trolling their personal Web sites for rule infractions.

"It's called `MySpace' for a reason, not `What-I-do-at-school Space,'" said Katy Bauschke, 18, a senior at Libertyville." ...

Continue reading Chicago Tribune Story: "District takes aim at teens' Web posts" (registration required)

Pacific Research Institute: "Live Free or Move"

2006-05-18T17:46:00Z

'Live Free or Move'

by Lawrence J. McQuillan and Hovannes Abramyan

Pacific Research Institute May 16, 2006

Jobs are flocking to low-tax states for a reason.

"Voters will elect governors in 36 states this year. And as they decide who to send to the governor's mansion, they will also be shaping the economic future of their state. On taxes, the gubernatorial candidates fall into one of two camps. Either they believe that the best way to close a budget gap is to raise taxes. Or, like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have done from the Oval Office, they believe in raising revenue by growing the state's economy with tax cuts."

"Now new data is out and it shows that the states that embraced supply-side tax cuts are not only financially more sound and enjoy stronger economies, but they are draining residents away from the states that opted for high taxes. The Pacific Research Institute has crunched the tax numbers in all 50 states and published the "U.S. Economic Freedom Index" ranking all states according to how friendly or unfriendly their policies were toward free enterprise and consumer choice in 2004--the most recent year that comparative data is available for each state. It's clear that the economic policies of 2004 determined where each state fell in the rankings, and shaped 2005 economic performance."

U.S. Economic Freedom Index: 2004 (Courtesy of Pacific Research Institute)

Note the large red midwest blemish called Illinois surrounded by states with higher Economic Freedom Indexes. Is it any wonder that jobs and residents are fleeing Illinois for any of the 45 other states with greater economic freedom?

Continue reading "Live Free or Move" at Pacific Research Institute

An Open Letter to President Bush on Illegal Immigration

2006-05-15T21:53:00Z

Mr. President,

While I applaud your decision to place National Guard Troops on our southern border as a small first step toward addressing the illegal immigration problem, this effort strikes me as half-a-loaf masquerading as a solution. I take no small irony in that the actions of the National Guard will be limited to mimicking the efforts of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, a group of patriotic Americans you chose to call "vigilantes". The Minutemen have succeeded despite Federal Government efforts to undermine their activities. Without arrest and detention authority, the National Guard can do little more than watch the invading throngs as they import poverty, drugs, crime, disease, and decline into America and haul away our jobs and wealth.

I trust that the National Guardsmen will have the necessary body-armor, reliable, appropriate non-obsolete weapons and communications, night-vision equipment, training and logistical support they need to confront the well-armed drug runners, human traffickers and other armed threats coming across our border daily. I should point out that as a military veteran, I recognize that military personnel are trained primarily to "kill enemies and break things", not to enforce complex immigration and border security laws. This National Guard border deployment would be entirely unnecessary had this and previous administrations along with their Congressional counterparts truly addressed illegal immigration issues.

I also trust that you will not use this deployment as a smokescreen to cover the reintroduction of the failed Hagel-Martinez Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S.2611) guest worker amnesty program. This program will simply provide de facto amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants already thumbing their noses at our laws and invite millions more to immigrate legally or continue to flaunt our laws, take our jobs, and further economically devastate American citizen taxpayers.

In a web memo published today, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, estimated that if passed, S.2611 would be "allowing an estimated 103 million persons to legally immigrate to the U.S. over the next 20 years—fully one-third of the current population of the United States." Amnesty by any other name is still amnesty. I ask you to explain to the American People how our country can retain its identity, its language, and its culture with such a rapid and profound shift in its population demography.

Mr. President, I have a simple message for you: Protect our Rule of Law by ensuring full enforcement of existing immigration laws, Protect our borders by proposing and supporting proper legislation, organization, funding, and execution of enforcement activities by immigration agencies, and help protect our English language and American culture that make America unique.

If you and the Congress fail in this mission, the American People will hold you and them to account in November and in 2008. America can ill-afford to be run by the Left at this critical time in history, but your leadership failures and the Congressional acquiescence to the Left are fast making that possibility a painful reality.

Sincerely,

Donald R. Castella
Chairman
Vernon Township Republican Central Committee
P.O. Box 96
Lincolnshire, IL 60069-0096

Phone 847-275-5542
Fax 847-557-5081

Email: dcastella@vernongop.org
Website: www.vernongop.org
Blog: http://weblog.vernongop.org

Senate Immigration Bill Would Allow 66 Million New Legal Immigrants over the Next Twenty Years

2006-05-15T21:43:00Z

Senate Immigration Bill Would Allow 66 Million New Legal Immigrants over the Next Twenty Years
by Robert Rector
May 15, 2006
Heritage Foundation WebMemo #1076

If enacted, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S.2611) would be the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years, allowing an estimated 66 million persons to legally immigrate to the U.S. over the next 20 years—fully one-third of the current population of the United States.

Much attention has been given to the fact that the bill grants amnesty to some 10 million illegal immigrants. Little or no attention has been given to the fact that the bill would quintuple the rate of legal immigration into the United States, raising, over time, the inflow of legal immigrants from around one million per year to over five million per year. The impact of this increase in legal immigration dwarfs the magnitude of the amnesty provisions.

In contrast to the 66 million immigrants permitted under CIRA, current law allows 19 million legal immigrants over the next twenty years. Relative to current law, then, CIRA would add an extra 84 million legal immigrants to the nation’s population.

The figure of 66 million legal immigrants is a reasonable estimate of the actual immigration inflow under the bill and not the maximum number that would be legally permitted to enter. The maximum number that could legally enter would be almost 200 million over twenty years—over 180 million more legal immigrants than current law permits.

Continue Reading Senate Immigration Bill Would Allow 100 Million New Legal Immigrants over the Next Twenty Years at The Heritage Foundation website.

Republicans And Immigration

2006-05-14T16:49:00Z

REPUBLICANS AND IMMIGRATION
by Thomas Sowell The Conservative Voice May 09, 2006 10:03 PM EST

Maybe some recent polls will put some backbone into Senate Republicans. But don't bet the rent money on it.

The percentages vary a little from poll to poll, as is usually the case, but these polls agree on one thing -- the public's top priority on the immigration issues is controlling the borders. They prefer the tougher bill passed by the House of Representatives to the weaker approach of the Senate.

The House of Representatives bill has been depicted in much of the media as harsh or draconian, as if it is a terrible thing to make illegal entry into this country a crime. The House bill is what is supposed to have sparked massive protest demonstrations around the country by illegal aliens and their supporters.

Those demonstrations may have impressed the media and intimidated politicians but they didn't change many minds among the American people. A majority of Republicans, Democrats, and independents all favor the tougher House bill. The percentages differed among these groups but they were all majorities.

What is really striking is that 53 percent of Hispanics supported the House bill. The loudmouths at the demonstrations did not speak for all Hispanics.

Continue reading Republicans And Immigration by Thomas Sowell

Political leaders see lessons in Ryan's fall

2006-04-21T15:29:00Z

From the Buffalo Grove Countryside:

Political leaders see lessons in Ryan's fall

BY KIMBERLY FORNEK AND CASEY MOFFITT
STAFF WRITERS

Local political leaders responded to former Gov. George Ryan's conviction in federal court Monday by expressing hope the verdict will lead to more ethical behavior by politicians.

Both state Sen. William Peterson, R-26th, of Long Grove, and state Rep. Sidney Mathias, R-53rd, of Buffalo Grove, called Ryan's conviction Monday a sad day for Illinois government.

Read the entrie story HERE

Lake County Republican Committeemen Elect New Chairman

2006-04-20T15:45:00Z

In the Daily Herald Lake County edition, Mike Riopell, Daily herald Staff Writer, reports on the bi-annual Lake County Republican Convention:
"Lake County Republicans essentially split Wednesday night on who they want to lead the party for the next two years, but leaders hope both camps will overcome their differences to face tough November elections."

Lake Villa Township Republican Chairman Dan Venturi came out of the spirited contest ahead 54.3% to 45.5% over Cuba Township Republican Chairman Tom Gooch. While the Herald article concentrates on the split vote, with a headline, "Divided GOP names new leader", the article fails to mention the standing ovation Dan Venturi received from the entire Convention audience, or the loud applause each time the unity theme was mentioned.

The real reason for the relatively close election outcome was the presence of two excellent candidates in the contest. New Chairman Dan Venturi acknowledged the strong support Tom Gooch had received by almost immediately nominating Tom for the post of Lake County Republican Central Committee Vice Chairman, a move that surprised some members. The campaign served to highlight issues that merit immediate attention by the Central Committee. The November election is foremost among the many tasks facing the Committee. Some organizational issues may have to wait until after the General Election.

Chairman Venturi said, "We have a lot of work ahead of us.” “Now it’s time we need to come together.”

Important Questions to Ask IRP SCC Candidates

2006-04-17T02:26:00Z

Important questions to ask IRP SCC candidates
By Dave Diersen GOPUSA Illinois Editor
April 1, 2006

BACKGROUND

The Illinois Republican Party (IRP) State Central Committee (SCC) is the legal representative and the governing body of the IRP. It is charged with the duty of organizing and promoting IRP's operations. It consists of 19 people, one from each of Illinois' 19 congressional districts. They are elected for 4-year terms by the precinct, township, and/or ward committeemen in each of the 19 districts at biennial county conventions. All of the 19 SCC positions will be up for election on April 19, 2006. Contact information for current SCC members is at: http://www.ilgop.org/directory/contentview.asp?c=1691. The IRP election rules are posted in PDF format on the Files page of www.gopillinois.com. At 5:00 PM on Friday, March 31, the IRP posted the names of the SCC candidates at: http://www.ilgop.org/news/contentview.asp?c=32686.

QUESTIONS:

-- Why are you running for a SCC position and why should you be elected?

-- What are your most important qualifications to serve as a SCC member?

-- If you are elected, what are the most important things you would want to accomplish?

-- Which individuals and which organizations are encouraging you to run?

-- Which individuals and organizations have endorsed your candidacy?

-- Who did you endorse for governor in the 2006 primary? Why?

-- If you are elected, who would you appoint as your Deputy?

-- If you are elected, who will you vote for to be IRP's next Chairman at the May 13 reorganization meeting? Why?

-- Bob Kjellander has tremendous influence over the IRP, over Chairman McKenna, and over the SCC. Do you favor or oppose Kjellander stepping down as IRP National Committeeman? Why? If Kjellander stepped down, who would you want to replace him? Why?

-- Kjellander has tremendous influence over the IRP, over Chairman McKenna, and over the SCC. If you acknowledge that you favor his stepping down as IRP National Committeeman, how would advance proposals in the SCC that he opposes?

-- What is your opinion of the IRP's enforcement of its ethics rules and its enforcement of its code of campaign conduct?

-- IRP SCC meetings are open to Illinois Republicans. Do you favor or oppose encouraging Illinois Republicans to attend SCC meetings including the May 13 reorganization meeting? Why? Will you ask Chairman McKenna to include a public comment period in the agenda for SCC meetings? If not, why not?

-- Why isn't information on SCC elections and the May 13 reorganization meeting posted on the IRP website and emailed to Illinois Republicans who have signed up to receive IRP emails? Will you ask Chairman McKenna to post that information on the IRP website and include that information in an email to Illinois Republicans who have signed up to receive IRP emails? If not, why not?

-- Do you favor posting more information on the IRP website concerning SCC meetings such as meeting dates, times, and locations and summaries of meeting agendas and minutes? If not, why not?

-- Chairman McKenna set out his plans for improving the IRP in his November 15, 2004 memo to Congressmen LaHood and Kirk. What is your opinion of those plans and the progress that he has made so far in carrying them out?

-- What is your opinion of Chairman McKenna's leadership of the IRP so far? What advice have you given him?

-- What is IRP's financial condition, that is, what are its financial assets, what are its financial liabilities, how much money did it raise and spend in 2005, and how much money has it raised and spent so far in 2006? Which individuals and organizations have donated the most money so far in 2006? Which types of expenses have been the greatest so far in 2006?

-- According to IRP's budget, how much money does the IRP plan to raise during 2006? How much money does IRP plan to spend during 2006 and on what major expense categories? Is the IRP meeting its budget? If not, why not?

-- What were the results of the most recent biannual audit required by Article III, Section E of the IRP by-laws? Have any questions been raised about IRP financial disclosure filings? If so, what are they and how were they resolved?

-- Who is the Chairman of and who are the members of the Finance Committee, the Campaign Support Committee, and the Chairman's Advisory Committee? What other committees and temporary task forces have Chairman McKenna established?

-- Judy Baar Topinka is the Chairman Emeritus of the IRP. What is your response to her extremely harsh criticism of SCC members and her extremely harsh criticism of SCC decisions, especially SCC's decision to fill the Jack Ryan vacancy with Alan Keyes instead of Jim Oberweis?

-- What criteria does the IRP use to qualify an organization as being "allied" with the IRP?

-- If you are a SCC incumbent, what do you consider to be your most important accomplishments on the SCC; how long have you served as a SCC member; in recent years, how often have you missed a SCC meeting and what is the main reason why you might miss a SCC meeting; when you began serving on the SCC, were you elected by Republican primary voters, elected by Republican precinct committeemen, or appointed to fill a vacancy; who, if anyone, ran against you when you ran for the position in 2002; who were the people who encouraged you to run for the position in 2002; which SCC committees and temporary task forces have you volunteered to serve on; and which of those committees and task forces do you serve on? If none, why?

-- All votes taken by the SCC must be weighted according to the number of Republican ballots cast in your congressional district in the most recent primary election. How many Republican ballots were cast in your district and statewide in the 2006 primary election and what is your percentage weighted vote? In the 2004 primary election, more Republican ballots were cast in District 16 than in any other congressional district. What are the main reasons why more Republican primary ballots were not cast in your congressional district in the 2006 primary election?

-- What do you do to help elect Republicans in your precinct, in your township and/or ward, in your county, in your district, in Illinois, in America?

-- The SCC position is unpaid. Do you have the necessary time, money, and motivation to do the job right? Please explain.

-- If you are an incumbent, did you vote for or against replacing Gary McDougal with Judy Baar Topinka? Why? Who did you vote for to fill the Jack Ryan and Judy Baar Topinka vacancies? Why? If you did not vote for Jim Oberweis to fill the Jack Ryan vacancy, why?Why didn't the SCC fill the Jack Ryan vacancy with Jim Oberweis? Who did you vote for to fill the Judy Baar Topinka vacancy? Why?

-- If Illinois returned to direct election of Republican SCC members, would you continue to seek the position? Why? Do you have the necessary time to run a district-wide campaign for the position? Do you have the necessary money to run a district-wide campaign, and if not, could you raise that money?

-- How familiar are you with the township and/or ward, county, Illinois, and federal elected officials who represent your district? How do you obtain and maintain that familiarity?

-- How familiar are you with individuals who are a candidate or are exploring the possibility of becoming a candidate for township, county, Illinois, and federal offices that represent your district? How do you obtain and maintain that familiarity?

-- What criteria do you use, does your congressman use, does your county party chairmen use, and does your township and/or ward party chairmen use to determine which primary candidate to support?

-- Do you regularly attend events hosted by your township and/or ward party, your county party, your district party, and the IRP? If not, why not?

-- If you are elected, would you distribute newsletters to Republican elected officials and party leaders in your district? What type of information would you include in those newsletters?

-- What have you done to help raise funds for your township and/or ward party, your county party, your district party, the IRP, and the national Republican Party?

-- What seminars and training classes have you attended that help you help elect Republicans?

-- What other positions do you hold in Republican organizations?

-- Do you reject the argument that leaders of Republican organizations should be allowed to show favoritism to those who show blind loyalty to them personally and to punish everyone else? If you do not reject that argument, why not?

-- What role did you play in the May 14-15, 2004 IRP convention?

-- What improvements would you like to see made to the IRP website, your district party website, your county party website, and your township and/or ward website?

-- Do you have an email address? If not, why not? Do you share it with the voters in your precinct, the other precinct committeemen in your township and/or ward, your township party webmaster, your county party webmaster, your district party webmaster? If not, why not? Do you check your email at least daily? If not, why not? Do you have your own political website?

-- Do you agree or disagree that only those who have demonstrated by both their words and by their actions that they support the national Republican Party platform and IRP platform should be eligible to hold any kind of leadership position in the Republican Party? Why?

-- The Republican Party exists to advance conservative solutions to solving America's problems. The Democrat Party exists to advance liberal solutions to solving America's problems. How many conservative conferences have you attended, for example, the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC)?

Link to Original Story by Dave Diersen at GOPUSA.com

Why We Must Defeat Rod Blagojevich

2006-04-15T18:40:00Z

In my political travels, both real-world and virtual, I have witnessed much discussion about the Illinois Governor's election contest. Much of the recent discussion among Republicans has centered upon what support, if any, Republican challenger Judy Baar Topinka can expect from the 60%+ of Republican voters who voted for a different candidate in the March 21 Primary Election. That discussion strikes me as a bit misguided, both in substance and spirit.

The real question that bears discussion concerns how and why Illinois voters would even consider granting Governor Rod Blagojevich, (D) - Chicago Machine, another four-year opportunity to assault the people of Illinois with his tyrannical exercise of executive power and usurpation of our laws, our State Legislature, and our constitutional freedoms. This man has single-handedly thumbed his nose at the will of the people, expressed through our Illinois Statutes and overreached the executive authority granted his office by the Illinois Constitution. He has also trampled on the exercise of Civil Rights protected by Title VII, U.S.C., particularly freedom of conscience.

At this writing, we witness continued gridlock in our General Assembly over the Governor's proposed budget. News of the latest back room deal between Daley lackeys Blagojevich, Jones, and Madigan is slow to seep out. Another $15 Million in funding for controversial Embryonic Stem Cell Research was disingenuously buried in that budget, despite claims that the Blagojevich administration would submit separate legislation for ESR funding to the GA for public debate. One must recall that the Illinois General Assembly has twice before voted down similar ESR public funding measures.

It should also be noted that Governor Blagojevich issued an executive order last year 'creating' the Illinois Regenerative Medicine Institute, ostensibly to fund controversial Embryonic Stem Cell Research after the GA adjourned, thereby usurping the role and authority of our Illinois Legislature.

I note that it was one year ago today that a public controversy boiled over another Blagojevich gubernatorial edict (AKA executive order) aimed squarely at denying freedom of conscience to Illinois pharmacists. The Governor's so-called 'emergency rule', forcing pharmacists to dispense the controversial 'morning-after pill' abortifacient, despite their moral and religious reservations regarding that act, resulted in the filing of a lawsuit against the Governor and his administration in the Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit of Lake County. The suit sought relief for a pharmacist from enforcement of the emergency rule on the grounds that the rule violated the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, that clearly holds that public policy of the State of Illinois is to “respect and protect the right of conscience” of all health-care professionals in the conduct of their duties.

Both of these cases clearly demonstrate Governor Blagojevich's calculated disrespect for the rule of law and the will of the people of Illinois. The Governor seeks to govern by edict, rather than by promotion of legislation that seeks approval through reasoned public debate. He has repeatedly demonstrated a pattern of callous disregard for the role and authority of other branches of Illinois State Government.

If this were not an election year, the loud calls for impeachment of Governor Rod Blagojevich might well echo from Rockford to Rosiclaire. But his removal from office will be more expeditiously realized by the People of Illinois, on November 7th, by secret ballot.

Don Castella, Chairman - Vernon Township Republican Central Committee

Campaign Finance 'Reform' and Free Speech

2006-04-15T16:13:00Z

"Some in Washington want to rein in 527's with greater government control and regulation, and that is certainly their right and a path that is consistent with the letter and spirit of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. However, I believe instead of greater government control of political speech, more freedom is the answer and that is why I could not support this bill. And while this liberty may be a bit more chaotic and inconvenient for some in the political class, as Thomas Jefferson said, 'I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.' The answer to problems in politics in a free society is more freedom, not less." —Rep. Mike Pence, Chairman of the Republican Study Committee

Congress seems all too eager to reign in political speech, in the name of fairness or some other perceived good. We must ask ourselves how the further removal or restriction of political discussions from the public sphere can possibly improve the quality and quantity of ideas we all examine, accept, or reject in our effort to find political consensus. One must question the motivation behind such efforts, recognizing that the marketplace of ideas must be protected from any efforts to stifle political debate. In doing so we may find that from such legislation, political advantage accrues to those already in office and efforts to reform our government are further crippled. It is this self-interest, aimed at protecting incumbency, that must be exposed and rejected if we are to preserve the process by which we protect the exercise of our freedoms.

Vernon Township Republican Central Committee meeting at 7:00 pm on Monday April 17, 2006

2006-04-15T02:18:00Z

The Vernon Township Republican Central Committee will meet at 7:00 pm on Monday April 17, 2006 at Vernon Township Administrative Building, 3050 Main St, Buffalo Grove, IL.

We will hear presentations by candidates for Lake County Republican Central Committee Chairman, Dan Venturi and Tom Gooch, and 10th Congressional District State Republican Central Committeeman, Ruth O'Connel and Raymond True. A question and answer session will follow each speaker's presentation. Refreshments will be served.

Questions: Contact Don Castella VTRCC Chairman - 847-275-5542

Democrats Find New Forum for Anti-War Agenda

2006-04-13T21:14:00Z

Like too few other Illinois citizens, on Tuesday, April 11, I signed in at the 156th annual Vernon Town Meeting as an elector (registered voter in my township). About twenty souls braved the lovely Spring weather to attend the annual township meeting, which is prescribed by Illinois Statutes.

While the meeting agenda was mostly dry financial reports, the meeting was an interesting glimpse of limited, grassroots local government. Township staff explained their government roles and gave reports on their activities during the past fiscal year. There were no controversies, no demonstrations, no anti-war protests... just competent local public servants reporting to the taxpayers on the valuable services they provide to our community. The electors present at the meeting voted on all resolutions brought before them, a fine example of grassroots democracy in action.

Other annual township meetings in Illinoiswere not so quiet. The Daily Herald reports on noisy debates at several Town Meetings in other counties.

In Springfield's Capitol Township, an anti-war protester from the leftist George Soros-funded Campus Progress, entered a motion to place an advisory referendum calling for the US to withdraw troops from Iraq on the township General Election ballot in November. The motion was passed by a majority of electors present, no doubt helped by a surprising number of organized anti-war attendees at the meeting.

At first blush, such apparently grassroots political activity might seem laudable, but one has to wonder how local Town Meetings have suddenly become a forum for organized left-wing anti-war protest groups. While one could applaud the efforts of young political activists like Michael Ziri, who led the Springfield referendum group, these actions, which are directly funded by Democrat Shadow groups, are hardly the stuff of grassroots politics. One need look no further than this Lowell Ponte article about Campus Progress to verify that fact: http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/cp.html

It turns out that the well-organized anti-war political apparatus behind these 'student groups' is actually filled with ex-Clinton administration Democrat operatives, whose real agenda is the Hillary Clinton 2008 presidential campaign. The Democrat shadow group's efforts include significant funding of anti-war protest groups. I find that approach to presidential politics curious, given the history of American voters rejecting Democrat candidates who they perceive as weak on national defense issues. So this liberal Democrat effort to unite the party mainstream with far-left anti-war groups may well backfire

The new 'Republicans vote on Wednesday' game

2006-04-12T16:40:00Z

The new 'Republicans vote on Wednesday' game

Apr 12, 2006
by Dustin Hawkins

We’ve all seen the e-mail sent out days before an election: “Democrats vote on Tuesday, Republicans vote on Wednesday. Don’t forget to vote! Wink, wink.” Or vice versa. Republicans can be just as juvenile. Generally speaking, such “friendly reminders” are sent as a joke, which then may or may not actually trick a few people. Probably those who are tricked are better off not voting anyway, but that is another point altogether. (In case you haven’t voted recently, everyone votes on Tuesday.)

But there seems to be a new “Republicans vote on Wednesday” taking form in time for the 2006 election. This effort targets grassroots conservatives known for their passionate views about issues who may be open to a grassroots voting rebellion. But the effort is being led, or at the very least aided, by liberals pretending to be grassroots conservatives, as opposed to actual grassroots conservatives themselves.

The premise follows a scheme previously found most often on talk radio programs: a liberal activist calls a conservative radio host, such as Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham, and delivers the line: “I’ve been voting Republican for 30 years, but I’ve finally had it and I’m not voting this year.” Or my favorite: “I’m a Reagan Republican, but I’m fed up and voting for John Kerry.” (Because that is what Reagan Republicans would do, vote for John Kerry.) At this point, the host usually asks a couple of questions and it becomes painfully obvious that the supposed Reagan Republican has probably never voted for anyone left of Michael Dukakis.

Continue reading The new 'Republicans vote on Wednesday' game at townhall.com

Encouraging Illegal Behavior for the Mighty Vote

2006-04-11T21:54:00Z

GOPUSA.com: Encouraging Illegal Behavior for the Mighty Vote

Posted By Bobby Eberle On April 11, 2006 at 6:31 am

As rallies popped up across the country yesterday to protest efforts by Congress to secure the borders, enforce existing immigration laws, and deal with the illegal aliens already in the country, the Democrats revealed in unmistakable clarity their true motives. This debate isn’t about fairness or compassion or any of the other buzz words they like to use. It’s about votes, and in their zeal to tap into the illegal alien voting bloc, they are not only condoning illegal activity, they are encouraging it.

First, as the Washington Times reports, “Huge numbers of marchers yesterday demanded U.S. citizenship for illegal aliens in dozens of cities from New York to San Diego in some of the most widespread protests since the current wave of demonstrations began last month.”

Demonstrators in New York held signs with slogans such as “We Are America,” “Immigrant Values are Family Values,” and “Legalize Don’t Criminalize.” One sign said: “Bush Step Down.”

Democrats have been quick to seize upon the sentiments of the illegal aliens and are hoping to lead them straight to the voting both. In continuing coverage by the Washington Times, the paper reports that “Democrats on Capitol Hill favoring citizenship for illegal aliens say they have been buoyed by the massive rallies across the country, but opponents of amnesty warn that they will ultimately backfire.”

At one of the rallies, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), one of the chief spokesmen for blanket amnesty, delcared to the protesters, “They say you should report to deport. I say report to become American citizens.” Please tell me something… what kind of message does that send to people across the border and in other countries? One can either go through the legal route, or simply walk across the border and line up for citizenship status. Hmmm… which one to pick?

Continue reading "Encouraging Illegal Behavior for the Mighty Vote"

Once again, the depths of Democrat pandering to "groups" in the name of "rights" knows no bounds. IN reality it's all about lining up future votes from a group Democrats already see as clients for socialist entitlements.