Choosing Illinois March 2016 Vol 1 Issue 1

US $10.00

Volume 1, Issue 1 | March 2016

Illinois 2016 Voter Guide to the Republican Primary March 15, 2016 –––––-----------–––––––––– Candidates for President, U.S. Senator, Congress and The General Assembly –––––-----------–––––––––– Success Story: The 6th Congressional District

“If not us, who? If not now, when?”

-Ronald Reagan

The Republican Presidential Nominee

WHO’S YOUR BEST BET?

BREAKING NEWS:

Transforming the Supreme Court: Justice for Voters in the Balance www.ChoosingIllinois.com

630.482.9900 www.LighthouseMktg.com

It takes in-depth knowledge of marketing trends, branding tactics and skill, to design a piece that is visually compelling and tells your story effectively.

We leverage our experience in every area of graphic communications; design, print, web development, social media management and SEO, to show & tell your story to the audience that you want!

Welcome from the publisher

W

elcome to the first issue of A Time for Choosing: Illinois.

Our focus is on the political, social, and economic development of Illinois into a great place to work and live again. Successful people, businesses, and jobs are fleeing Illinois. A century ago, Illinois was one of the most competitive business locations in the world. It attracted ambitious people who made extraordinary achievements. Relentless “progressive” socialist policies have driven economic growth and prosperity elsewhere. Illinois hasn’t collapsed yet, but is at risk.

Illinois obviously has many problems, but successful people at every stage of life can choose to work together to make Illinois great again. Politicians are not what made America great.

As President Reagan famously said, government is not the solution. “If not us, who? If not now, when?” We are free to choose our own futures, for better or worse. We must choose wisely.

This is a historic turning point as Americans choose between progressive socialism and the vigorous defense of individual liberty as anticipated by our Constitution. Illinois has been driven from prosperity to bankruptcy, and now the same failed policies are being pursued nationally.

Are we to be ruled over by political and academic elites who want more power to impose their ideas on all of us, or choose to take responsibility for leading our own lives and communities?

Freedom and liberty are never more than one generation away from extinction. Will this be the first generation of Americans to leave a dismal future to our children? Socialism has failed everywhere. Why would we as free Americans choose a legacy of misery and political servitude?

Political decisions have consequences. Our role is to help citizens choose to make a difference by working with others to achieve better outcomes.

Cynicism or apathy is acceptance of failure.

We focus on serving individuals who take responsibility each day for choosing to succeed at improving their own futures and communities. There is no reason to cynically accept that failure is inevitable. Well informed and active citizens can lead great social and economic progress.

Citizens drive progress. We are not simply observing what politicians and bureaucrats do to impede or exploit success rather than sustain and promote it. We want to share “best practices” among citizen leaders who do not accept that Illinois is an inevitable failure from which to flee Our reporting and analysis reflects an independent point of view which focuses on the role of informed and successful individuals as the real leaders driving progress in our society.

We hope you will choose to join us and subscribe as we work with you to make a difference.

Bruce Donnelly, Publisher

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 3

MARCH 2016

VOL 1 ISSUE 1

Table of Contents

11 candidates are on the ballot. By March 15, only 3 may compete.

42

Interviews: 30 | Joe Walsh 46 | John Tillman 25 | James Marter 58 | Dan Duffy 66 | David McSweeney

Your Constitutional rights are at risk.

4 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

10

62 | Dan McConchie 64 | Martin McLaughlin 26 | Kyle McCarter

Inside this Issue 3 | Letter from the Publisher Empowering voters to turn Illinois around 9 | Letter from the Editor Why go to print?

10 | Justice for Voters in the Balance Transforming the Supreme Court

14

14 | Reagan Won Illinois Three Times Believe it or not, the GOP can win 17 | Super PACS: Funding Liberal Media It’s sad where the money goes 18 | Money in Illinois Politics The rules favor incumbents, not voters 20 | Congressional Fundraising Investing in winners and losers without a strategy 21 | General Assembly Fundraising Can donors reform Springfield to save Illinois jobs?

17

22 | Political Philanthropy Why do people donate to politicians?

23 | Governor Rauner’s State of the State Where’s the call to action?

25 | Interview with James Marter Sen. Mark Kirk has a primary opponent 26 | Interview with Kyle McCarter Why take on a twenty-year incumbent?

28 | GOP Townships Censure Sen. Mark Kirk Grassroots Republicans pull their support 29 | A Call to Action If you don’t feel represented, do something

30

30 | Interview with Joe Walsh “First, there will be a crash”

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 5

www.ChoosingIllinois.com

48

54

32 | Iowa Caucus Results More Republicans voted than Democrats

51 | Mark Levin’s “Plunder and Deceit” Book Review: generational theft and loss of liberty

33 | New Hampshire Primary Results Again, more Republicans voted than Democrats

52 | The View from a Neighbor A Missouri operative explains how to win here

34 | South Carolina Primary Results Trump takes all 50 delegates

54 | Cook County Property Tax Assessments A process convoluted by design

35 | Nevada Caucus Results How does the record Trump turnout compare?

55 | A Success Story Peter Roskam and the 6th Congressional District

36 | Perspective after “Super Tuesday” Analysis for Illinois primary and November voters

58 | Interview with state Senator Dan Duffy Illinois is at a crossroads

42 | COVER STORY: Who’s the Best Bet? In search of the next Reagan

62 | Interview with Dan McConchie Candidate for the Illinois 26th Senate District

44 | Convention of States The Founders didn’t want all the power in D.C.

64 | Interview with Martin McLaughlin Candidate for the Illinois 26th Senate District

46 | Interview with John Tillman Can Illinois be the Texas of the Midwest?

66 | Interview with state Rep. David McSweeney Candidate for re-election in the 52nd House District

48 | Choosing Whether to Stay or Leave Illinois Can the exodus be stopped?

6 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

67 | Who’s the Extremist?

Pro-life can be a winning issue for Republicans

68 | Common Core Where the wrong answer can be right 70 | Learn for Free Khan Academy and Hillsdale College offer quality resources 72 | The Problem with Body-Rejecting Students Title IX is being perverted in high schools

75 | Illinois Review Crossroads of the conservative community

76 | Faith, Family & Freedom Illinois Family Action gets conservatives in motion

77 | The Diersen Digest Illinois’ free daily email newsletter 78 | Health Insurance Open Enrollment 2016 Higher prices, smaller networks, canceled plans

87 80 | Climate Change Reconsidered There is no “consensus” on the human impact on the climate 82 | Suggested Books and DVD’s For your family or school and public libraries 86 | Ballotpedia.org A free online source for political information 86 | 270toWin.com An online interactive electoral map 87 | 2016 Voter Guide Information about the primary candidates as contributed by the candidates.

76

101 | Scorecard for IL Members of Congress From Heritage Action and Conservative Review

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 7

March 2016 | Vol. 1 Issue 1 {PUBLISHER}

Bruce Donnelly {EDITOR}

John Biver {PRINT & WEB DESIGN TEAM}

Lighthouse Marketing Services, Inc. {WRITERS}

Warner Todd Huston Cal Skinner Nancy Thorner {C O N TRIBU TO R S}

Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute Lennie Jarrett, The Heartland Institute C. Steven Tucker, HealthInsuranceMentors.com P U B L I S H E D Q U A R T E R LY

Subscriptions are $40/year.

To subscribe, visit www.ChoosingIllinois.com A D V E RT I S I N G C O N TA C T :

Bruce Donnelly 847.551.2913 ReaganCaucus@Reagan.com C O N TA C T F O R P E R M I S S I O N TO REPRINT CONTENT:

Choosing@Reagan.com THE RE AGAN C AUCUS, INC. PO Box 439, Fox River Grove, IL 60021 Send address changes and return undeliverable copies to above Postage paid at Carol Stream, IL 60188 Š 2016 All Rights Reserved

8 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

We selectively list upcoming Republican events on our website at www.ChoosingIllinois.com/Events To inform us of events: Choosing@Reagan.com

Thursday, March 10 Presidential Debate in Florida on CNN Friday, March 11 Governor’s Dinner, Palmer House, Chicago Hosted by Gov. Rauner with guest speaker Ted Cruz Friday, March 11 Northwest Suburban Republicans Lincoln Day Dinner, with guest speaker Ted Cruz Tuesday, March 15 Illinois Primary Election Wednesday, April 13 Illinois County Party Conventions Friday - Monday, May 20 - 22 Illinois Republican Party State Convention in Peoria, IL We feature major events we plan to attend or sponsor, or which are advertised in this magazine. We may list some others of likely interest to our readers, such as town halls where voters can meet and question their elected officials, public debates among candidates, or events about major issues by policy advocacy organizations.

We will not attempt to list all the many party or campaign fundraisers, rallies, or other events.

There are a vast number of events. They are typically small, local, planned on short notice, and promoted largely to prior attendees.

County and township Republican organizations often maintain their own websites or Facebook pages, and use those to promote events. Check your local organizations. The Illinois Republican Party website also lists events.

Letter from the editor

W

elcome to the inaugural issue of A Time For Choosing magazine. We trust that you will find it helpful, and that you will help us improve and expand it in the coming months.

Why “go to print” in the age of the Internet? There are a lot of reasons, one being that not everyone knows where to go on the Web to find what they need. A printed publication received in the old fashioned mailbox can help guide more people to the multitude of terrific materials that are to be found on the World Wide Web. While that’s just one of the reasons, it’s a good one. So many tools are available for Americans who support the principles found in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution – and this magazine will continually highlight them.

Another focus will be on assisting those on the political right to connect with the growing number of their fellow citizens who are stepping up to take back the power that has too often been usurped by an ever-growing government. When the Founding Fathers began the Constitution with the words “We the People,” they intended that to define forever where the authority was vested. It’s not in the elected officials or the bureaucrats.

In the struggle between Reagan-like optimism and growing pessimism, the left ignores facts to focus on emotional appeals.

Voters are distracted from critical issues such as the debt, growing dependency on government, and so many failed policies and programs.

The educational system, the old media, and the popular culture push a “narrative” that what we see around us is “inevitable.” Anyone opposing it is “on the wrong side of history.” What history tells us, however, is that breaking with a failed past is an American tradition – we need only do it again.

There is good news. Americans are waking up to the dangerous erosion of our liberties. Since the election of 2008, the Democratic Party has lost over 900 state legislative seats, 12 governorships, 69 U.S. House seats and 13 U.S. Senate seats. Since the Republican Party is in much need of reform and better leaders, more of our fellow citizens must rise up to help enact reform and provide leadership.

We all have a choice to make – how much we pay attention, whether to vote and if so how, and to what degree are we willing to stop being “citizens in name only.” This publication seeks to aid those who know the country is in trouble and are willing to take action.

John Biver, Editor We want this to be a dialogue. Please contact us at choosing@reagan.com and give us your thoughts, suggestions, and yes, your complaints.

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 9

Feature Story | Breaking News

JUSTICE FOR VOTERS IN THE BALANCE Transforming the Supreme Court

A

decade ago, conservative talk radio host Mark R. Levin wrote Men in Black, warning how the role of the Supreme Court was being politicized to impose liberal progressive policies on America in the courts.

Nine lawyers had arrogated to themselves the power to rewrite the meaning of laws through Supreme Court decisions. A single vote could turn personal political opinions and social ideas into legal precedent without any Constitutional constraint on such power.

Unlike the careful system of checks and balances to avoid tyrannical abuses of power in Congress or the executive branch, a simple majority of five lawyers were becoming dictators for life, with the power to transform American society as they pleased.

Senate confirmation hearings were becoming political dramas over this unelected power to 10 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

transform America and expand the scope of government.

Instead of defending constitutional rights, the Supreme Court was being used to trample their rights and impose personal opinions. Judicial review was becoming an excuse for judicial activism to impose progressive policies rather than adjudicate disputes.

That was never the original intent of the Supreme Court. It was not a Politburo to rule over the voters with more power than the President and Congress.

The death of Justice Scalia, a very conservative Reagan nominee, has resumed this political fight over the role of the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia was the leading conservative on the Court, and vigorously argued for an “originalist� constitutional constraint on the growing power of the Supreme Court and government.

The vacancy creates a tie vote on key cases this year.

President Obama can nominate whoever he wants, whether his choice is a progressive radical left activist judge or somebody more “mainstream,” as Democrats have insisted Republican presidents must nominate.

The Senate, however, can certainly reject his nominee.

For example, the Senate Democrats defiantly rejected the appointment of the “originalist” Robert Bork as well as Daniel Ginsburg before President Reagan finally nominated Justice Kennedy, who became the swing vote on many key 5-4 decisions ever since. Democrats also fought the July 1991 nomination of Clarence Thomas with threats to destroy him politically because of his conservative views. Liberal activists threatened to “bork him,” and then treated him disgracefully.

These partisan fights over the views of nominees are nothing new, but they reflect attempts by Democrats to achieve through the Court what they have not been able to achieve through elections, as in the case of two radical activist appointees by President Obama already.

The fight over the next Supreme Court nominee is likely to remain one of the prominent issues of the 2016 election because it draws public attention to the fact that the next President is likely to also nominate two or three more new Justices.

Since the Court is divided 4-4 between liberals and conservatives, despite varying opinions on specific issues, the replacement of Justice Scalia with anything other than a very conservative nominee would transform the balance of the Court for decades.

Given the prior Obama nominees Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, it seems likely that he will soon nominate somebody who is a progressive activist but has been confirmed previously by the Senate to other positions. That may include judges who were approved when Harry Reid was the Majority Leader, such as during the period when he used the “nuclear option” to block filibusters of nominations so that a simple majority vote prevailed, contrary to past rules.

The nominee will probably be announced prior to the March 15 primary in Illinois. Several potential names have been floated already in the days after the death of Justice Scalia, but that is largely speculation to test the response or jockey for position politically.

Senator Mitch McConnell issued a carefully worded statement which is somewhat worrisome.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice.

Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”

The worrisome aspect of this quote, as noted by Rush Limbaugh already on his program the next day, is the use of the word “should,” While media accounts of the statement suggested that McConnell definitely would not approve of an Obama nominee prior to the 2016 election, this could also be interpreted as an opening position for negotiations over a nominee. It does not guarantee that he will block any nominee.

Despite the “advise and consent” role of the Senate to hold confirmation hearings and approve or reject any judicial nominees, Republicans have routinely approved even radical Obama nominees in recent years. It has been rare for them to reject a nominee, although some have been stalled from confirmation votes or pushed through as recess appointments or by using the “nuclear option” of a simple majority vote when Harry Reid was still the Majority Leader.

Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed by a 68-31 vote in 2009 to replace David Souter, another liberal Justice, so this was not shifting the balance of the Court. At the time, the Democratic supermajority in the Senate meant that Republicans could not block it, so the confirmation hearings were a foregone conclusion.

Elena Kagan was confirmed 63-37 shortly prior to the 2010 election which reduced their majority. The Senate leadership did not change until after the 2014 election, but there were no other Supreme Court nominees after the Republicans gained enough votes to sustain a filibuster. They blocked some judicial appointments before Harry Reid changed the rules to ignore filibusters. It is unclear whether Mitch McConnell can be trusted to actually block a nominee until after the 2016 election, when he may lose his role as Leader whether he blocks the nominee or not.

If voters want to have a voice in the nomination process, they can apply pressure through their presidential primary choices as well as the many US Senate races in 2016.

There are 24 Republican Senators up for election in 2016, and only 10 Democrats. Enough Republican incumbents are at risk of defeat in 2016 that the Democrats believe they can win back the majority.

If the Democrats win control of the Senate in 2016, March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 11

Feature Story | Breaking News any Republican president might face a very difficult Senate confirmation fight over any nominees who would change the political balance of the Supreme Court. The Constitutional rights of voters are very much at stake.

Senator Mark Kirk is one of the most vulnerable Republican incumbents up for election in 2016 since his voting record is as liberal as some of the top Democrats in Illinois. He is one of the top targets nationally of the Democrats as they try to win back control of the Senate.

He won by a narrow margin in the 2010 “Tea Party” wave election, even though he had nothing in common with the Tea Party conservatives. It is much easier for a Republican to win in a midterm election such as 2010 than in a presidential year like 2016.

Voters may therefore be interested in the initial response of the Kirk campaign to a request for a statement about his position on nomination of a replacement for Justice Scalia. They issued a brief and vague statement which did not suggest that he is firmly committed to resisting any such nomination.

“Antonin Scalia was a giant in the history of American jurisprudence. His legacy and contribution to our nation will long endure. The political debate erupting about prospective nominees to fill the vacancy is unseemly, let us take the time to honor his life before the inevitable debate erupts.”

This dodged our simple question to his campaign: “Will he firmly oppose any Obama nominee so that the position is not filled until after the 2016 election?”

His conservative primary challenger, James Marter, was unequivocal that the Senate should delay or reject any nominee until after the election. Unlike Mark Kirk, he would have no voice in the matter unless he wins the primary and in November, and Mitch McConnell actually delays the nomination.

The 6 remaining Republican presidential candidates in the South Carolina debate all seemed to favor deferral of any nomination until after the 2016 election. Donald Trump said Mitch McConnell should “Delay! Delay! Delay!” Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio were similarly emphatic. Jeb Bush and John Kasich were more ambiguous, as was Ben Carson.

12 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

Exclusive Interview:

Joe Walsh

Former Illinois Congressman and Chicago talk radio host Joe Walsh was asked about his analysis of the consequences for Illinois voters of the nomination of a replacement for Justice Scalia, as well as the likely replacement of other justices in the years ahead.

His conservative talk radio program gives him rapid feedback from Republicans, independents, and many liberal Democrats as well. It was a lively topic of conversation on his February 15 program, which is available through his website, WalshFreedom.com His general opinion was that Justice Scalia was a historic conservative leader “like Reagan or Thatcher,” and if the Senate Republicans don’t stand firm and block the nomination until after the 2016 election, the party is no longer representing conservatives.

He was doubtful that Senator Kirk would stand firm rather than duck the issue in pursuit of liberal votes.

Mitch McConnell is desperate to hold the Senate majority, so he thought that he would be willing to hold confirmation hearings even if he stalls the nomination. It is impossible to predict whether McConnell will stand firm since a loss of 5 seats would end his role as Leader.

He thought President Obama would announce a nominee within 2 to 3 weeks, perhaps after the March 1 “super Tuesday” primary in the South.

By that time, it may be apparent who is the likely Republican presidential nominee, or else after the March 15 primaries in Illinois, Florida, Ohio and North Carolina.

The nomination fight over a very liberal activist choice can be a wedge issue for criticism of the Republicans as “obstructionists” in the Senate, which may pressure McConnell to cave in rather than fight. They can use this issue to motivate their base voters this fall through fear mongering about the implications of a Republican President and Senate replacing liberal justices. The appointment of a liberal justice would tilt the political balance of the Court for decades. That will reinforce their pressure on targeted Senate races, as in Illinois.

A trusted source for printing and mailing

Catalogs Magazines Newspaper Inserts Direct Mail Point of Purchase Postcards

Continentalweb.com

Feature Story | Reagan

REAGAN WON ILLINOIS. THREE TIMES.

By Bruce Donnelly

Political pundits and party leaders in DC assume that Illinois is a solid Democratic state and cannot be won.

Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush are evidence to the contrary. Illinois has certainly changed since the 1980, 1984, and 1988 elections in which they won.

After Democratic dominance of Springfield in recent decades has bankrupted Illinois, voters have had a chance to see the contrast between their policies and the Reagan era. Despite voting for Reagan, Illinois did not take full advantage of the “Reagan Revolution” in the 1980’s because of “progressive” dominance in Springfield. That made the state less competitive for business investment and growth than other states.

Historical facts are stubborn things which the liberal news media tends to ignore or use very selectively to support their point of view. Consider these facts.

1980 1984 1988 1992

Reagan-Bush 2,358,040 2,707,100 2,310,930 1,734,090

Democrats 1,981,410 2,086,490 2,215,940 2,454,350

Bill Clinton only got only 2.4 million votes to win in 1992 after George H.W. Bush lost the support of conservatives. Carter narrowly lost Illinois in 1976.

Illinois was a conservative “red state” for most of the 14 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

elections from Abraham Lincoln to the Reagan years.

Although Bill Clinton won Illinois in 1992, he earned over 100,000 fewer votes by 1996.

That raises the obvious question of whether Hillary Clinton is likely to do better in Illinois than Bill Clinton. Will Chicago Democrats support her as enthusiastically as Barack Obama after now seeing the consequences?

As the election totals show, Democratic turnout in Illinois spiked dramatically for Barack Obama in 2008, but that peak declined by 400,000 votes in 2012.

When Dick Durbin ran in 2008, he got 3.6 million votes, which was even more than Obama. By 2014, as the consequences of the Obama administration became obvious, Durbin got only 1.87 million votes.

In 2014, Governor Rauner won with 1.82 million votes as Democratic governors Quinn and Blagojevich lost support. A Republican also won as governor in 1998 with 1.7 million votes, which is typical for a midterm.

It is not impossible for Republicans to win Illinois.

The Republican Party in Illinois, however, has not run a successful presidential campaign since ReaganBush. The national strategy of just paying attention to a few easier “swing states” has meant that little serious effort or investment has been made to grow the base of the party in Illinois since the Reagan era. It can be done.

Can Illinois Be Competitive in 2016?

Consider the above data in the historical context of the Reagan-Bush years.

In 1984, President Reagan earned over 2.7 million votes, up from 2.35 million in 1980.

That 1980 turnout is very similar to the results for George W. Bush in 2004, when there was strong support in Illinois but not enough for him to win as his campaign focus was on other “swing states” after he lost Illinois with only 2 million votes in 2000.

Further analysis shows that total Illinois voter turnout in the Clinton years declined to about 4.2 million and 3.9 million in 1992 and 1996 respectively. Illinois voters were not enthusiastic Clinton supporters.

No Republican since President Reagan has earned

close to the 2.7 million votes he achieved in his 1984 landslide. In other words, although Illinois was still mired in Democratic policies in Springfield, the voters responded to Reagan with a dramatic increase over his 1980 totals, which were more typical of a strong Republican year.

Those were the “Reagan Democrats” and independents who came out for Reagan, but not for the more “moderate” candidates put forward by the party ever since, including George H.W. Bush, whose total declined from 2.3 million in 1988 (a typical good year, like 1980) to only 1.7 million in his loss to Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton picked up votes in 1992 relative to 1988, but he won on a much lower total voter turnout.

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 15

Feature Story | Reagan

Illinois Presidential Election Results Chicago Area vs. Rest of State

How can Illinois be won by Republicans?

First, consider the difference between the Chicago area (the city plus the suburban “collar counties”) and the rest of Illinois.

Republicans already win most counties of Illinois.

Even in Cook County, the suburban townships are more Republican than the city of Chicago. Within Chicago, Republicans are outnumbered, but Democratic turnout in a presidential year varies significantly. There was a lot of enthusiasm for Barack Obama in 2008, but much less in 2012. In 2014, the turnout for Senator Dick Durbin was almost half the level of 2008. He got only slightly more votes than Governor Rauner.

16 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

As shown above by a hypothetical model for Illinois voter turnout in 2016, assuming that roughly 5.0 million Illinois voters will show up, the Republican presidential nominee would need more than 2.5 million votes to win.

Since Illinois has 20 Electoral College votes, that could be decisive nationally. Most “swing states” are smaller, and most political pundits assume that Illinois cannot be won. Is it really likely, however, that Hillary Clinton or any other Democratic nominee in 2016 is going to perform as well as Barack Obama did, or even as well as Bill Clinton? Bill Clinton never got 2.5 million votes in Illinois in 1992 or 1996. A serious Republican campaign could win.

Feature Story | Media

Super PACs Funding liberal media

I

f you have watched TV recently, you have probably seen advertisements by Super PACs (political action committees) in support of, or in opposition to, candidates of both parties.

OpenSecrets.org publishes a useful summary of such organizations in the Influence and Lobbying section of their website under PACs. For example, the latest report shows the Right To Rise USA Super PAC in support of Jeb Bush raised about $118 million, and already spent almost $70 million of it trying to help him in early primaries.

Contrast that to the Jeb Bush campaign committee, which is constrained by campaign finance rules which do not apply to Super PACs, which can raise unlimited amounts of money.

Individuals can donate millions of dollars at a time to Super PACs if they can afford it. The campaign committees face many constraints. In the case of the Jeb Bush committee, it raised about $32 million and already spent $24 million of it at the end of 2015.

Ted Cruz had raised about $47 million for his campaign, and spent about $28 million. There are multiple Super PACs which support him, and they have raised over $40 million while spending only a little over $10 million of it in 2015.

You can find the original data at FEC.gov, but it is

cumbersome to research. OpenSecrets.org makes it much easier to see the scope of all such PACs in both parties, and who they favor or oppose. Super PACs invest almost nothing in grassroots work to grow the base of the party between elections.

Most of the major candidates now have Super PACs for 2016 through which they have raised well over $200 million in total.

Once again, that is in addition to their campaign committees as well as other PACs such as lobbying groups and party organizations which may also assist them.

By the end of the 2012 election cycle, Super PACs had already spent over $600 million.

It may well go over $1 billion in the 2016 election cycle, plus many tens of millions spent by the individual candidate campaigns and the party organizations or regular PACs. It is sad to consider where most of this money actually goes. A high percentage goes to produce and place those TV ads you probably ignore. They buy up virtually all of the available television ad time in target markets at election time. That is a great windfall for the liberal TV networks which don’t even reliably reach active or potential Republican voters, or treat such candidates and their issues fairly.

In effect, many wealthy Republican donors are trying to help the candidates of their choice, but in doing so are enriching the liberal media channels which do not even treat Republican candidates fairly, or present policy issues and news fairly. Worse yet, the ads do not necessarily reach and influence the voters they need to persuade to support Republican candidates. It is a massive gamble which may not produce many votes, while grassroots field work produces results.

Would successful people normally give away millions of dollars to organizations with so little accountability for performance? Their desperation to win is helping liberal media channels to prosper as candidates lose.

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 17

Feature Story | Political Donations

MONEY in Illinois politics

P

olls consistently show that voters favor more disclosure of political donations. Democrats and liberal media routinely decry the influence of “millionaires and billionaires” even as they raise more money from them than Republicans.

The reality is that few people ever look at the vast amount of campaign finance disclosure information which is readily available online. Instead, it is largely used as a tool to intimidate donors through media stories which imply that Republicans are all funded by corrupt lobbyists or cronies buying influence or government favors and contracts, while Democrats are relying on small donors to defend the interests of the poor and middle class against the evil rich capitalists.

That’s when they aren’t busy engaging in pay to play politics and doing high priced fundraisers among millionaires and billionaires on Wall Street or in Hollywood and elsewhere who favor the Democrats.

Think about it. Where has Obama spent much of his time in office? When he isn’t on the golf course or lecturing us to be nice to Muslims, he is often at fundraisers raising millions of dollars for the party.

Hillary and Bill Clinton have also become immensely rich as politicians.

18 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

For perspective, you can do your own research through websites such as OpenSecrets.org or look at detailed records of campaign finance reports and individual donations through FEC.gov or the Illinois State Board of Elections www.elections.il.gov OpenSecrets is easy to use, but the government disclosure websites are cumbersome and confusing, perhaps by design. Political campaign workers and journalists or lobbyists know how to use the sites for their interests, but voters rarely use them. They serve largely as opposition research tools for seeking any harmful information or mistakes in reports as compliance violations or an excuse for criticism.

Careful analysis can yield surprising information and trends, but few voters have the time or inclination to do research. They favor transparency, but expect somebody else to do the oversight work. That means the analysis is largely performed by liberal media and campaigns looking for ways to criticize opponents.

The data becomes a tool for the media to selectively go after Republicans while rarely bothering to do serious analysis. They take the opposition research talking points from Democrats and repeat that narrative without seriously investigating or reporting

on what the Democrtic campaigns are doing.

While liberal progressive organizations have tended to focus on tools for attacking their political opponents in elections, conservative groups have put more focus on transparency in government, such as disclosure of how taxpayer money is being spent or wasted.

Two good examples are www.openthebooks.com and Illinois Leaks by the Edgar County Watchdogs at www.edgarcountywatchdogs.com.

The liberal progressive focus is on their political rivals to constrain their campaign fundraising, while conservative groups tend to focus more on what is wasted after politicians of either party get elected and do their deals.

What harm is it to you if somebody gives their own after-tax money to support the candidates of their choice? By contrast, what is the harm to you when politicians spend trillions more tha taxpayers can afford to pay?

People should be free to donate their own money without intimidation in the absence of some corrupt quid pro quo. Would you really favor having taxpayer money spent to fund campaigns, as Democrats often propose? That would just give a permanent advantage to the incumbents who can write the rules to perpetuate their own power and influence. Voters beware!

Indeed, politicians in both parties already write the rules for political fundraising to favor incumbents, not voters.

Soon after the 2014 election, both Republicans and Democrats quietly agreed to an obscure provision in the omnibus budget bill to raise individual donation limits for contributions to political party organizations from $32,400 to a whopping $324,000 per person. A family of millionaires can easily donate over $1 million this way.

Meanwhile, they left the limits for individual donations to a candidate campaign at $2700. That empowers party leaders to raise vast sums of money from millionaires and billionaires in BOTH parties, while it remains very difficult for any primary challengers to raise large sums of money. It protects the incumbents and their cronies. This perpetuates their power even if voters are not happy with how they are being represented. Once elected, it is very difficult to get rid of them. The rules favor them.

To illustrate how this works, consider US Senator Mark Kirk. When he ran in 2010, he raised $14

million for his campaign. Of that, $10.5 million was in itemized donations above $200, plus about $1.3 million in small donations. Over $2.3 million came from other committees such as the party leaders.

Of the $10.5 million in large donations, nearly $7 million (65%)came from Illinois donors, who often gave the maximum amount allowed. The rest came from donors in other states, with about 25% of it from eastern states and about 10% from the western states.

In 2016, the picture is very different. As of Sept 30, 2015, Mark Kirk had raised only $2 million in itemized large donations, and $900,000 of those were in Illinois as contrasted to $7 million in 2010. It was now about 45% from the East, 10% from the West, and only 45% from Illinois rather than 65% as in 2010.

He is raising less money in Illinois, and more from the east coast. Small donations now add up to almost $500,000, as contrasted to $1.3 million in 2010.

Donations from large donors are now $5.2 million.

The difference, however, is that now the Republican Party leaders, such as Mitch McConnell and the NRSC, will have many millions of dollars available which they can spend to help defend Mark Kirk if they choose to do so.

The party leaders are also influential with wellfunded Super PACs which can raise millions of dollars to spend independently on any such campaigns.

In summary, the rules have been changed by party leaders to favor their cronies, regardless of what voters think of them.

His primary challenger is James Marter, a conservative businessman who does not have many party leaders or millionaires supporting his grassroots campaign. He is trying to challenge Mark Kirk because of his very liberal voting record.

The campaign finance rules limit individual donations to $2700 per person, so he would need over 2000 maximum donors or tens of thousands of small donors to compete. Even if he raised millions in record time, the party leaders could easily outspend him to defend Mark Kirk.

Meanwhile, his likely Democratic opponent, Tammy Duckworth, has raised over $4 million as of Dec 31, 2015 and will also have party and PAC money to challenge Mark Kirk. It is one of the top targets nationally for Democrats in 2016 to win back the majority in the US Senate.

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 19

Feature Story | Fundraising

Congressional Fundraising Investing in winners and losers without a strategy.

All districts

2012

2008

2004

2000

Average

Republican $26,959.013 $23,662,982 $15,558,631 $14,526,200

$20,184,332

Democratic $22,219,878

$16,783,513

$26,803,421

$9,147,833

$8,963,165

R districts

6

7

8

10

Losing seats

D districts

12

11

10

10

Winning seats

I

n 2016, Republican donors may invest roughly $30 million in the 18 Congressional district races in Illinois without actually having a strategy for achieving a better outcome. Much of the money will go to defend safe incumbents rather than to win Democratic districts.

Since Democratic voter turnout has historically been higher in presidential years as compared to midterm elections, the party is generally on the defensive.

Candidates are left to defend their own positions, and relatively little is done to strategically target investment into competitive districts where gains could be made with an effective campaign to grow the Republican base.

As shown above, Republican donors have generously given significantly more money than Democrats in three of the last four presidential elections, but the number of Republican seats in Congress has steadily declined even as the donations have increased dramatically.

Why do successful people continue to invest in failure without considering the need to change their approach from business as usual, which keeps losing?

Every campaign is left to do fundraising largely on its own, so the money flows to incumbents who have a strong base of supporters from past campaigns.

The challengers in Democratic districts struggle to gain enough support to reach and persuade many

20 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

new voters. Instead, they often lack the resources to mount a serious challenge, even as a grassroots volunteer campaign.

Note that the total number of Illinois Congressional districts has declined from 20 to 18 since 2000.

Dominance of Illinois by progressive Democrats has demonstrable consequences.

The total has declined from a peak of 27 districts in 1940 to 18 today. That is a massive decline as business investment and job growth went elsewhere. Illinois peaked at that level in the 1910 Census. That means the relative economic size of Illinois by comparison to other states declined quite dramatically during the period of largely unchecked Democratic “progressive” policies in Springfield.

The rapid growth of Illinois from the Civil War to the Woodrow Wilson years was brought to an abrupt stop as other states became more attractive. The Illinois share of Congress declined with almost every Census since 1940. You can see this in the chart of declining Electoral College votes for Illinois as shown on the 270toWin.com website at www.270toWin.com/States/Illinois.

Illinois was a Republican state for presidential elections from Lincoln to Reagan, but Democratic policies thwarted the “Reagan revolution” until we now face a serious fiscal crisis.

General Assembly Fundraising Can donors reform Springfield to save Illinois jobs?

2012 Election

Democratic Votes

Republican Votes

Total Votes

President

3,019,512

2,135,216 5.154.728

Total 118 IL House districts

2,374,233

2,078,116

Difference

I

645,279

n 2016, there may be roughly 5 million votes cast again in November, but they may be more evenly split between the two parties.

If that happens by significantly improving the Republican party turnout, even though the party does not seem to have any strategy or plan to grow the base, it could dramatically change the composition of the General Assembly in Springfield.

As shown above, many Democratic voters showed up to vote for Barack Obama in 2012, but nearly 650,000 of them did not vote for General Assembly candidates in House districts. There was a similar pattern for the Senate districts. By contrast, few of the Republican voters failed to vote for General Assembly candidates.

If the Republican turnout improves in 2016, and the Democratic turnout declines as expected, that may also make many more Illinois House and Senate races competitive. Dozens of districts have been lost in prior elections by a small margin.

On the other hand, throwing money at such districts is not likely to be an effective strategy.

To illustrate, in the 2014 midterm election, the campaign for Governor Rauner spent roughly $63

4.452.349

57,100 702.379

million, but that didn’t lead to victories in the Illinois House or Senate, Congress, or other state offices.

He achieved more votes than Bill Brady in 2010, but he got about 1.8 million votes, as compared to about 1.7 million in 2010. Governor Quinn earned fewer votes than in 2010, which made all the difference. He had fewer votes in 2014 than Bill Brady had in 2010 with a campaign which spent about $15 million poorly.

In short, what did all those millions really achieve?

Attorney General Lisa Madigan got over 2.1 million votes in 2014, down from nearly 2.4 million in 2010.

Secretary of State Jesse White got nearly 2.4 million votes in 2014, down from nearly 2.6 million in 2010.

That means hundreds of thousand of voters supported Lisa Madigan and Jesse White, but not Pat Quinn. Few, however, crossed over to vote for Governor Rauner or to support Republicans in the General Assembly.

There is no evidence yet that the party or Governor has a plan to actually grow the base of Republican voters in the districts which could be won in 2016.

Throwing money at the campaigns may not get the job done.

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 21

Feature Story | Donations

Political Philanthropy Why donate to politicians? Who does it?

I

n the 2012 election, Illinois donors gave over $10 million to the Republican presidential candidate campaign committees, plus other money to PACs, Super PACs, and party organizations.

Of that total, roughly $1.8 million came from 1800 donations in the Barrington area of the northwest Chicago suburbs. That’s an average of $1000 per donation. It reflects a mix of the maximum donations (now $2700 for federal campaigns) as well as many smaller donors (over $200), and does not include the many thousands of donations for less than $200. Since those are not itemized, it is impossible to analyze those by state or size.

In the case of a campaign such as Jeb Bush in 2016, he had already raised over $480,000 in Illinois by Sept 30, 2015, plus more money for his Super PAC. Scott Walker raised about $360,000 in Illinois before he dropped out after the first debate.

Ted Cruz had raised about $330,000, and Marco Rubio around $320,000 in Illinois by Sept. 30.

All of the Republican candidates put together had raised about $2.2 million in Illinois by Sept. 30, plus what they raised for their Super PACs before they announced their candidacies, mostly in June.

In other words, they raised a lot of money in Illinois in a few months from donors of all sizes, from a few dollars to thousands of dollars. Some candidates had many large donors, and others had many small ones.

It all adds up to millions in each election.

While the Democratic and liberal media narrative implies that Republican campaigns are all funded by evil “millionaires and billionaires” with ulterior motives such as crony deals to further enrich themselves, objective analysis and research suggests a very different picture.

Yes, Illinois is famous for “pay to play politics”, but which party has been in power for decades as the main player in that scheme? Which party has enjoyed largely unchecked power to favor their cronies? The various transparency projects to expose political corruption, as well as federal investigations and

22 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

prosecutions, have ensnared corrupt individuals in both parties, but Democrats have acted largely with impunity for years.

There are many, many very honorable people of both modest and high incomes who choose to invest in the political candidates they favor. Whether they invest $10 or $20 or hundreds or even thousands of dollars, they rarely get anything more in return for it than gratitude from a candidate who needs a lot of money to run a successful campaign. Many donate far more value than cash in terms of volunteer work for a campaign.

Political campaigns are not charities, so there is no tax break from making donations to campaigns.

There are some non-profit charities which do good work related to politics, but that is a separate matter.

Why do so many successful people, wealthy or not, donate so much of their hard-earned money to Republican campaigns?

We believe they want to make a difference in their community, the state, or the country. We will explore this further through donor interviews and research.

Feature Story | State of the State

GOVERNOR RAUNER’S

“State of the State”: “Where’s the Call to Action?”

I

llinois still does not have a budget. As the impasse between the General Assembly and the governor continues on into its second calendar year, the fiscal state of the state continues to worsen. The state’s social service infrastructure is being destroyed. The state’s credit rating continues to suffer, and a lack of spending caps on Medicaid and other programs continues to increase the size of the approximately $6 billion dollar deficit.

Because of this, Governor Bruce Rauner’s annual “State of the State” address in January received more scrutiny than usual – and

the reviews are in.

As expected, there was criticism from the left side of the political aisle, and some tempered praise from the right. A sampling of media responses reveals a mix of both positive and negative reactions.

The editorial board at the Northwest Herald called the speech “refreshing” and “different,” and aimed their fire at the Democratic leaders in the Legislature: “Voters want a new approach to the fiscal catastrophe that Illinois has become on their watch.”

A report from National Public Radio hit the governor for making

“little mention of the state’s financial crisis.”

According to NPR’s Cheryl Corley, “Education, criminal justice reforms and other issues were the focus in Gov. Rauner’s State of the State address. It wasn’t until the very end that he talked briefly about the shadow that’s loomed over Illinois for months – the stalemate over a budget crisis that’s caused deep cuts in social service programs, layoffs and a struggle for both public universities and thousands of students as they wait for state grants.”

When Rauner did address the March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 23

Feature Story | State of the State budget, he referred to 2015 as a “difficult year”: “[W]e debated a budget with structural reform.... it is not too late for this General Assembly to make historic progress for the people of Illinois....

We need to install common sense into our union contracts.”

Emily Miller, a spokesperson for a coalition of social service providers, had some of the harshest criticism of the governor: “How many people have to stand in front of a microphone and say that their lives are being ruined before the governor decides to make passing a budget his number one priority?”

Rauner did discuss facets of his “Turn Around” agenda: “To bring good jobs to Illinois, we have to make Illinois a place where it is good to do business. We must fix our workers comp system, labor regulations, liability costs, and property taxes that make us uncompetitive and push job creators out.”

“Change is hard,” Rauner said.

“Reform is difficult. But we can’t just raise taxes again. We know that doesn’t work. While the 2011 tax hike was in place, our credit rating was downgraded five times, we barely made a dent in our bill backlog, state support for schools was cut, our unfunded pension liabilities went up $28 billion, and our economic growth fell to almost half the national average.

Raising taxes without improving our ability to compete will not help the people of Illinois, and in fact, it will make things worse.”

In reaction to the speech, Illinois Policy Institute CEO John Tillman responded, “Illinois is in a world of 24 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

hurt. The resounding chorus from special interests and opponents of reform in Springfield is that all would be well in Illinois if only the governor would agree to more tax increases and just sign a budget.

That thinking is completely wrong, and today’s address by Rauner is a refreshing reminder that he doesn’t buy that argument, either.”

Tillman continued: “Illinois’ deep problems did not begin during the last 12 months with Rauner as governor, but during the last several decades of House Speaker Mike Madigan, Senate President John Cullerton and the rest of the status-quo political establishment. Now this same crowd is standing in the way of the very reforms needed to save Illinois. It’s time to face reality and accept that doing things the way they have been done for years has not worked and will not save our state going forward.”

A spokesman for Americans for Prosperity Illinois commented that in the speech, “the governor laid out proposals that, if acted upon, will save taxpayer money, grow the economy and make Illinoisans’ lives better... The governor’s proposals focus on some of the areas of state government that need the most attention. Taxpayers and homeowners, as well as our children, deserve better than the status quo.”

Republican state Rep. Jeanne Ives took aim at Governor Rauner’s critics: “No one ever said that 40 years of bad decisions could be easily undone in 12 months. Under Illinois’ political class, The State of the State has fallen into disgrace. It is a disgrace that our families and

businesses have been put on the hook for the deception and failure of politicians.”

One Republican Party consultant and long time activist was disappointed after watching the speech, citing Rauner’s seeming willingness to “go it on his own.”

“There was no rallying cry for the citizens of the state nor especially for the rank and file citizens that call themselves Republicans,” the activist said. “The governor once again failed to rally his would-be supporters at the grassroots level.

He never explained why a budget can’t be passed, and never gave backers of reform a way to support the larger effort.”

“This year at the national level,” the activist said, “several Republican candidates are tapping into the deep frustration with government that exists across the nation. There is no reason we can’t see a similar manifestation here in Illinois concerning the operation of state and local government. But Rauner doesn’t seem capable of drawing on the same energy that Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and others have in the GOP presidential primary.”

One recent poll had Governor Rauner’s approval rating at 33%, his disapproval rating at 51%. Both numbers had reportedly ticked up higher from the previous poll.

All in all, the state of the state is still not good, and conservative Illinoisans are still waiting for a solid plan charting the way forward.

Interview | James Marter

Senator Kirk has a conservative primary challenger

S

ix years ago, in 2009, Mark Kirk spent many months making up his mind on whether he was going to run for the United States Senate seat that was opening up due to the retirement of Roland Burris.

During that period, conservatives waited for someone to step up who would campaign in support of the basic principles outlined in the Republican Party’s state and national platforms.

Anyone familiar with Mark Kirk’s voting record in the U.S. House knew what it would be in the U.S. Senate – and his record got worse. His Heritage Action and Conservative Review scores are worse than some Democrats from the Illinois delegation.

Congressman Peter Roskam was among those who may have helped discourage any well-funded conservatives from entering that 2010 Republican U.S. Senate primary, as he all but endorsed Kirk’s candidacy months before it became official. This was seen by many as a typical failure of both the Illinois Republican Party and conservatives in Illinois.

While others eventually entered the race, including at least one capable conservative, none of Kirk’s opponents were able to raise the necessary funds to mount a serious challenge.

Tragically, Mark Kirk suffered a stroke in early

2012, and missed an entire year of work while in recovery and rehabilitation. While the media has been mostly silent about Kirk’s current condition, his performance at congressional hearings and elsewhere has raised questions about whether he is physically up to the task of running for reelection next year. The debate among Illinois Republicans whether Kirk, if nominated, can win a second term has received media attention. More than one news article has covered the comments of well known and influential Illinois GOP establishment figures.

In December 2015, James Marter entered the race to challenge Kirk in the Republican March primary election.

Marter is a conservative, a business owner , and is married with two children. He lives in southwest suburban Oswego.

Marter’s position on issues that concern him:

• Repeal Obamacare.

• I am Pro-Life. I will vote to defund Planned Parenthood and vote for Pro-Life legislation.

• On Immigration/Amnesty. Stop the influx and enforce the law. No to another Amnesty Program!

• Balance the Budget. Fix the tax code, make it flat and simple, and slash the size of the IRS. Stop giving our treasury to foreign countries, crony capitalists, and end the “Corporate” welfare giveaways.

• I firmly support the right to bear arms as unequivocally stated in the Bill of Rights: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Here is some of what James Marter had to say:

The campaign has been going very well – I’ve been traveling the state – attending events, and meeting Republicans whose reception has been great.

There is a large amount of frustration with Senator Kirk’s positions – especially on his recent voting record.

It seems clear to me and countless others that Kirk is on a sinking ship – his campaign had to pay people to circulate his petitions.

Illinois is not a state that needs to be “blue” forever. There are a lot of angry and frustrated people in this state and they’re not all Republicans. Many Democrats realize that government is trying to do too much.

We’ve run up $18 trillion in debt with the combined effort of Republicans and Democrats. We are bankrupt.

Visit Marter’s campaign website to learn more: Marter4Senate.us

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 25

Interview | Kyle McCarter A: Everyone knows that Washington DC is broken.

And unfortunately, John Shimkus has become a part of the problem. I’m a calculated risk taker. This is a good time to be running.

Kyle McCarter challenges Rep. John Shimkus

W

e recently interviewed Kyle McCarter about his decision to challenge John Shimkus for the 15th District seat in Congress.

Last December, Illinois Review reported that both the Political Action Committee “Club for Growth” and state Senator Kyle McCarter blasted “Illinois Republicans that sided with Paul Ryan’s $1.1 Trillion Omnibus bill,” among them, twenty-year incumbent John Shimkus.

McCarter said, “Once again John Shimkus has abandoned the people of southern Illinois by supporting the liberal Obama-Pelosi spending agenda.

Whether it is funding Planned Parenthood, supporting amnesty, or now voting for runaway spending, the truth is Washington has changed Congressman Shimkus into just another big-spending politician.”

“We deserve better from Washington. Congress has to learn to live within its means without these type of wasteful mega spending bills. As a Congressman, I would work towards a balanced budget and holding the line on spending.”

Q: Why are you taking on a 20-year incumbent, and can you raise enough money to be competitive?

26 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

Q: Discuss your accomplishments in the state Senate that make the case for your candidacy for Congress.

A: I think people in the state legislature know a lot more about, for instance, workers comp – than they ever knew when I came because I have beat that drum from day one. I said from the start that’s what I was going to do and I did it.

I think we’re close to achieving workers comp reform – I think we’re close to getting an agreement for that. I don’t know if it’s going to happen in a month or three months or what – but it’s obviously one of the priorities of the governor. And I believe we’re going to have success.

I think we’re going to have success with unemployment insurance reform as well. That was another thing that I was working on.

I guess the question in this campaign is term limits.

Are term limits the answer? It’s not the total answer.

But it’s the one thing that I believe that addresses part of the problems in politics today.

People say “you need time to get things done.” Well you sure don’t need twenty years. If you haven’t been able to do anything in twenty years you perhaps weren’t the right guy. It doesn’t take twenty years to get something done.

I feel I’ve gotten a lot done in the legislature.

Especially being in the super-minority.

Q: With lackluster performance of the GOP controlled U.S. House and Senate, many republicans are skeptical about the notion that elections have consequences.

A: If I’m elected, the people in the 15th district will have the loud clear voice that they should’ve had over the last two decades.

This is one of the most conservative districts in the state and there’s no reason for the person that represents it not to be one of the loudest. For instance, if you make a promise for term limits – keep it – or don’t make one.

I’m not sure if Shimkus’ pledge was for 3 or 4 or 5 terms – even if it was 5 – he’s a decade off.

Illinois is not a state that needs to be “blue” forever. There are a lot of angry and frustrated people in this state and they’re not all Republicans. Many Democrats realize that government is trying to do too much.

And it really speaks to keeping your word. You say you’re pro-life – but then he votes for the continuing resolution to fund Planned Parenthood.

You can’t get away with saying one thing in the district and then doing something totally different once you get to Washington DC. Q: Why don’t we have more incumbents challenged?

A: There is a lot of power in incumbency. Whether you’re in the state house or it’s on the federal level.

There’s a lot of advantages of being the incumbent.

But also, as in Illinois, you’ve got an establishment in politics that does everything it can to keep there from any primaries. And they’ve done that in this race. They done that in state races. We’ve seen it. Fortunately, people stand up and say “I’m going to run anyway.”

It’s not the party that should pick who the people’s choice is. That’s not the party’s job. It’s the people’s job.

And I find it quite offensive for anyone to try and get anyone out of a primary race. Not just in my race but anyone’s because the last time I checked, I have the right as a citizen to jump into any race I want whether I have a chance of winning or not.

And so how dare the party – Republican or Democrat – say that they are so smart and powerful enough to pick who the people get to vote for.

If party officials are afraid of primary challenges

– you have to wonder why. In the 15th district – the people get a choice for the first time in twenty years.

They have not had a choice. Because I am running they now have a choice.

There’s a clear contrast in this race between someone who has said they’re for term limits and broke their word – and myself who is term limiting myself out of my state senate seat – I’m not going to run again in 2018. I’m not just saying it – I’m doing it.

And as far as being pro-life, I’ve been asked – are you willing to shut down the government over a commitment to not funding Planned Parenthood? I am.

Even many people who support abortion are appalled by what Planned Parenthood has done.

We get upset at human trafficking. How much more disgusting is it to deliver a baby and sell its parts?

Voters need somebody fighting for them, not fighting to protect their committee assignments or raising money from influential people so they can get a chairmanship of a committee.

To learn more, visit McCarter’s campaign website at: www.KyleMcCarter.com.

Editor’s note: A Time for Choosing reached out to the campaign office of incumbent congressman John Shimkus to request an interview, but the calls and emails were to no avail.

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 27

Feature Story | Aurora Township

GOP Townships Censure U.S. Senator Mark Kirk for His Votes

F

or many, the concern over Illinois Republican U.S. Senator Mark Kirk’s voting record has reached the tipping point. In late 2015 the Aurora Township Republican Central Committee in suburban Kane County voted to censure Kirk not once, but twice due to his votes against defunding abortion provider Planned Parenthood.

As reported by Illinois Review, the Aurora Township GOP “unanimously agreed to censure Senator Kirk for not upholding the Illinois Republican Party Platform and being the only Republican in the U.S. Senate to side with Democrats twice against defunding Planned Parenthood.”

Aurora Township GOP secretary Jennifer Nevins told IR, “We warned Senator Kirk in the first censure passed that he was jeopardizing our organization’s support if he did not vote in a way that upheld the IL GOP platform.”

“Many Republicans voted for Mark Kirk in 2010 because all that mattered at the time was for Republicans to gain the majority in the U.S. Senate,” Nevins said. “How has that made a difference?”

28 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

In the first censure passed in September, the Aurora Township GOP included these words:

“Whereas, it is the responsibility and the right of the Aurora Township Republican Central Committee, and of all Republicans, to speak and act in the support and the defense of the long-established and fundamental principles of the Republican Party as contained in the Illinois Republican Party Platform; and “Whereas, when any official elected to any position as a Republican repeatedly acts in contravention of these principles, it is the duty of all Illinois Republicans, including this body, to protect and defend these principles by publicly stating its disapproval of that official’s actions; and “Whereas, when any official continues to engage in a course of conduct that violates fundamental principles of the Illinois Republican Party Platform, it is the duty of all Republicans to take such measures as are available to them with the aim of placing the interests of all citizensbe they born or unborn-ahead of any political or personal interests...”

The committee “resolved” a list of three items, the first of which was to give “notice to Senator Kirk that should he choose to take any such action, he will jeopardize any and all forms of support this body customarily gives all Republican officials, including, but not limited to, promotion in voter outreach efforts.”

That was in September. In October the Aurora GOP followed up with a second censure right after Sen. Kirk voted again in support of Planned Parenthood: “Whereas, an initial resolution of censure protesting Senator Mark Kirk’s recent vote allying with Democrats against a House bill intended to stop tax-payer funding of Planned Parenthood was issued to Senator Kirk and forwarded to other concerned parties, and “Whereas, after the aforementioned censure was issued warning of a consequence if the Senator chose to disregard this body’s request that he refrain from any further votes that violate the Illinois Republican Party Platform he immediately committed the following acts: “1.Voted “nay” on a bill that would restrict-on a federal level- abortion at or past the past the point of fetal viability (assessed at twenty weeks).

“2.Voted against the Senate bill that would stop tax-payer funding of Planned Parenthood.

“Whereas, as a result of these actions, Senator Mark Kirk has lost the full confidence of this body in his ability to serve as a Republican

senator representing the people of Illinois in a manner consistent with the platform of the Republican Party. [...]

“Whereas, because this body earlier resolved that if Senator Kirk chose to continue acting in a manner inconsistent with his responsibilities as a Republican member of Congress, we now declare that the following consequence is now in force: “Any and all forms of support the Aurora Township Republican Central Committee customarily gives Republican candidates, including but not limited to promotion in voter outreach efforts, is now revoked from Senator Mark Kirk and his campaign for the United States Senate. The Senator’s name will be removed, or otherwise redacted from all voting guides and materials that this body’s precinct committee persons distribute to their constituents.

“It is with both regret and with firm conviction that this body takes this action.”

Other local GOP committees to censure Sen. Kirk were Chicago’s 11th Ward, and the Batavia Township organization based in Kane County.

According to the 11th Senator Mark Kirk Ward censure, “while entrusted with the office of Senator by the voters of Illinois, Mark Kirk has committed several actions incompatible with the principles of the Illinois Republican Party...”

“Any and all forms of support which the 11th Ward Republican Party of Chicago, IL customarily gives Republican candidates, including but not limited to promotion in voter outreach efforts, is now revoked from Senator Mark Kirk and his campaign...”

A Call to Action: Run for Office Editor’s note: The filing period has passed for individuals interested in getting on the 2016 primary election ballot. However, the call for new candidates never ends, since 2017 will see municipal and other local level elections. ATFC recently spoke with a Republican circulating petitions to run for office in Illinois - here are his words:

W

hy you should run for office is the basic high school civics lesson – if you do not feel represented, you have to do something about it. If you are disappointed with the operation of your government or the voting record of those you have elected, it is your duty to either run or find someone else to run that shares your values.

One of the first considerations is raising money for the campaign – and that is always a challenge. The important thing to keep in mind is that finding financial support is as much of a group effort as is volunteer support. For example, getting out the vote on election day, for even the smallest political race, is a group effort.

So it is with fundraising.

We need better people running for office because one of the most important things missing in Illinois is a clear distinction between Democrats and Republicans.

The Republican Party has not made the case for small government. It is not that they have tried and failed – they don’t even seem to know that the possibility exists.

This is also a challenge to the political right.

They say they want more efficient and effective government, but too few are willing to stand up and do something themselves.

Many people who are uninterested in politics get the same sense I do – that we have no choice and are just along for the ride on this train. The destination in the hands of those driving the engine.

People need to be aware that is not the case.

They have the opportunity, the power and even the responsibility to get up, get involved and take charge.

Too many Americans have lost the concept that we do not exist by the will of the government – the government exists by our will.

Whether you like it or not, this is your government.

This is your nation. It does not own you – you own it.

If someone is piling up debt, enacting failing policies and making foolish promises, you own it. You can stop it now or suffer the consequences later.

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 29

Interview | Joe Walsh

First There Will Be a Crash “The sooner we can get to the other side the better” A Time for Choosing recently asked radio talk show host and former Illinois Congressman Joe Walsh some pressing questions.

Q: “If you have one minute to talk to a group of people, what would you say about the American and Illinois political landscape in 2016?”

A: The Republican Party is breaking up before our very eyes.

Don’t be afraid. It’s a good thing. And it’s a long overdue thing.

The sooner we can get to the other side the better – even though I don’t know what the other side is going to look like.

That’s why I tend to like what Trump is doing.

Because I want to get to the other side as quickly as possible. I want the party to be done, because I don’t think the party can be fixed. Certainly not as it is today – so the quicker we can get there the better.

It is literally breaking up before our eyes and I think the final blow will probably be this election.

That’s generally where I tend to start these days.

I’m on record saying that I think Hillary Clinton will be our next president. I think it’s going to be very difficult to beat her for a lot of reasons. In a weird way, Trump may be the only guy that can beat her because he so appeals to people that don’t typically vote Republican.

But if Trump is the nominee I think the Republican establishment will bail on him. And I think that will facilitate the breakup of the party.

30 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

Even if Trump is not the nominee, I think the party breaks up. If Bush is the nominee, he’s going to have a tough time winning. And that will facilitate the break up of the party. And so help us, if an establishment candidate is the nominee, that will facilitate the breakup.

Q: “People haven’t been stepping up to serve in the Republican Party; will they serve in a new political party?”

A: When I speak to people on the radio and when I go and speak to groups of people, and I speak to Republicans and I say this – I don’t think we’ll be in the wilderness that long. Look, 30-40 percent of the party believes in freedom and limited government and they want a party to be the voice for that.

I think they’ll sign on pretty quickly to a new party.

I think with technology we’ll be able to communicate and galvanize and organize people towards a new party quickly.

Q: “What has to happen in 2016 – and what can rank and file conservative citizens do?”

A: Boy, that’s a good question. I think anger is the key to this. And I want grassroots Americans, not just Republicans – to hang onto their anger and channel their anger to try to impact the 2016 election.

Everyone says it’s the most important election in our time – well, the 2008 was, the 2012 was – the damage has already been done. I do think all the macro factors are against us. The country is becoming poorer, the country is becoming more

dependent upon government, the country is becoming more racially diverse – and that wouldn’t be a problem but these people vote Democrat. So we have a weird chance in 2016 I think, for the last time in a long time, to sneak in a Republican president.

I just don’t want a Republican president; I want a conservative president. But I think grassroots conservatives can have great sway this year in trying to get a Trump or a Cruz elected. I think if anyone else is elected, the status quo will reign. There will be no change at all.

So my advice is, if what I say depresses you – “that almost all is lost” – and you want to make a difference this year, then try to get Trump or Cruz elected. But understand that it’s going to be very difficult. In Illinois if you want to make a difference, try to flip a couple of seats in the state house or state senate.

That’s where I’d put my energy.

Do not give money to the Republican Party. Do not get involved with the party. Find a candidate that believes in freedom and limited government and work for that candidate. The more local the candidate the better.

So I believe the Republican Party is going to breakup. What people need to do now is to help lay the groundwork for what comes after the breakup of the Republican Party. It’s all about saving the country – but get conservatives elected now. Get involved with conservative groups and conservative causes.

So that when we do crash, we can more quickly organize and galvanize to save the country.

Q: “So despite the negative short-term outlook, you think the country can still be saved?”

A: Yes, but first there will be a crash. The saving won’t take place until after the crash, in the country and especially in this state.

People are leaving Illinois more quickly now than they did under former governor Pat Quinn. I don’t think that’s a reflection of Governor Rauner, I think that’s a reflection of the fact that people are just convinced that “ain’t nothin’ gonna turn this state around.”

More and more people are doing that – leaving – as soon as they are able to.

As far as the country goes, we’ve become fat, lazy, and stupid. People don’t understand what America was. We’re not going to turn the country around until Americans are educated about freedom and limited government, and then they demand freedom and limited government. We’re a long way from that.

Q: “What’s your critique of your former U.S. House Republican colleagues and our state’s Illinois Republican legislators?”

A: Paul Ryan/John Boehner – there’s fundamentally no difference. Most Republicans in the House and the Senate – there is very little difference between them and the Democrats. Think about it. There are 242 Republican members of the House of Representatives [and] 30-40 of them think as I do. So you’re talking about that other fifth or a sixth of the Republican Caucus – most do not understand or believe what we are saying.

We’ve got a long, long, long way to go.

So few people know who Paul Ryan is. He’s the most over-rated member of the House. He’s a creature of the establishment. It was a brilliant move for the establishment to make him Speaker since it stifled conservative criticism. Because there are still a lot of people out here who think Paul Ryan is conservative.

So we have a long way to go.

There is no Republican Party in Illinois. Period.

Bruce Rauner has money. That’s it. That’s it. That’s why when I lost I immediately formed Walsh Freedom to have a grassroots army of conservatives to knock on doors to get conservatives elected.

There is no party in this state.

Q: “What would you recommend to Governor Bruce Rauner to help more Illinoisans to figure out what’s wrong and to get on the right side and to get activated?”

A: Let go of some of these “turn around” items, get a budget done, and don’t you dare raise taxes. I like that Rauner is publicly standing firm. But if you want to keep people in Illinois and Republicans and conservatives jazzed, you cut spending and don’t raise taxes. Focus on improving the business climate in this state. Let everybody know you’re not going to raise taxes.

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 31

Feature Story | Caucus Results

FEBRUARY 1, 2016

IOWA CAUCUS RESULTS

Total Votes Cast: 186,932 Total Delegates at Stake: 30

IA

Republican Caucus Winner: Ted Cruz

CANDIDATE

VOTES CAST

%

Ted Cruz

51,666

27.6%

8

Donald Trump

45,429

24.3%

7

Marco Rubio

43,228

23.1%

7

Ben Carson

17,384

9.3%

3

Rand Paul

8,481

4.5%

1

Jeb Bush

5,238

2.8%

1

Carly Fiorina

3,485

1.9%

1

John Kasich

3,474

1.9%

1

Mike Huckabee

3,345

1.8%

1

Chris Christie

3,284

1.8%

0

TOTALS

186,932

100%*

DELEGATES EARNED

30

* Includes 1% votes cast for Rick Santorum

T

he national news media routinely focuses on the percentages of votes, as in their many opinion polls. Those polls were wrong again by far more than the alleged margin of error.

Look at the actual vote totals as well as the 30 delegates divided among the candidates at the nominating convention.

There were over 186,000 Republican caucus votes cast. Compare that to roughly 140,000 in the Democratic caucuses.

Do the math, which you will not have seen in national media coverage. Iowa Republicans outnumbered Democrats by 57% to 43%.

That is remarkable, because the prior record Republican turnout in 2012 was 120,000. That is

32 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

more than a 50% turnout increase.

After Barack Obama won the Iowa caucuses in 2008, he went on to win the general election in Iowa with 54% of the vote. He won again in 2012 with a lower 52% total.

Democrats have won Iowa in 6 of the last 7 presidential elections, but Republicans led 57-43 in the caucuses. That’s a big reversal.

Consider all the money and months of work that went into winning 7 or 8 Iowa delegates.

Contrast that to 54 of 69 delegates elected in the Illinois primary. Illinois has 20 Electoral College votes. Iowa has 6.

Will the campaigns visit and listen to Illinois voters, or just advertise and do private fundraisers and media interviews as usual?

FEBRUARY 9, 2016

Total Votes Cast: 284,120 Total Delegates at Stake: 23 Republican Primary Winner: Donald Trump CANDIDATE

VOTES CAST

%

Donald Trump

100,406

35.3%

11

John Kasich

44,909

15.8%

4

Ted Cruz

33,189

11.7%

3

Jeb Bush

31,310

11.0%

3

Marco Rubio

30,032

10.6%

2

Chris Christie

21,069

7.4%

0

Carly Fiorina

11,706

4.1%

0

Ben Carson

6,509

2.3%

0

TOTALS

284,120

100%*

NH DELEGATES EARNED

23

* Includes 0.9% votes cast for Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum

T

he primary was electing the 23 New Hampshire delegates to the nominating convention in Cleveland. Carly Fiorina and Chris Christie suspended their campaigns after the primary.

Unlike Iowa, the Real Clear Politics average of recent opinion polls was relatively accurate.

Donald Trump won with 35%. John Kasich, who virtually moved to New Hampshire in recent months, finished second at 17% to earn 4 delegates to add to the 1 he earned in Iowa. Ted Cruz finished third, closely followed by Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio.

Jeb Bush and his super PAC reportedly spent over $36 million trying to salvage his campaign in New Hampshire, as contrasted to an estimated $580,000

by Ted Cruz according to news reports. Both won 3 delegates in New Hampshire. Marco Rubio won 2.

Chris Christie had also hoped to make a comeback in New Hampshire, but didn’t. It ended his campaign.

There were 284,120 Republican votes, and 250,983 Democrat votes. That is much lower than 287,500 Democrats in 2008, when Hillary won with 39%.

Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton by 60% to 38%.

Republicans led Democrats by 53% to 47% in 2016 on higher turnout than usual. Like Iowa, that’s a significant increase in 2016. In 2012, 248,475 voted Republican, up from 239,328 in 2008.

In Illinois, 54 of 69 delegates will be elected on March 15. Over $75 million and months of campaign work went into New Hampshire, which has only 4 Electoral College votes. Illinois has 20, and may be a competitive swing state in 2016.

Reagan-Bush won Illinois 3 times by a landslide. It is a myth that a conservative cannot win Illinois.

Will any campaigns pay attention to Illinois voters in 2016, or just advertise and raise millions here to spend elsewhere as usual?

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 33

2016 PRIMARY/CAUCUS RESULTS

New Hampshire Primary RESULTS

Feature Story | Primary Results

FEBRUARY 20, 2016

SC

SOUTH CAROLINA PRIMARY RESULTS

Total Votes Cast: 737,924 Total Delegates at Stake: 50 Republican Primary Winner: Donald Trump CANDIDATE

VOTES CAST

%

Donald Trump

239,851

32.5%

50

Marco Rubio

165,883

22.5%

0

Ted Cruz

164,791

22.3%

0

Jeb Bush

57,865

7.9%

0

John Kasich

56,207

7.6%

0

Ben Carson

53,327

7.2%

0

TOTALS

737,924

100%*

T

he South Carolina polls were relatively accurate. Donald Trump won as expected with 32.5%. He swept all 7 Congressional districts by a wide margin to win all 50 delegates.

He is also expected to do well in Nevada. Unless there is a major reversal in the March 1 “super Tuesday” primary in the South, he may may be the clear favorite by the time of the March 15 primary in Illinois. Ted Cruz has already announced three public events in Illinois on March 11.

Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz virtually tied for second at a little over 22%. The three others were far behind at 7 to 8%. That represented a strong comeback for Marco Rubio after his disappointing performance in New Hampshire.

Jeb Bush and his super PAC reportedly spent over $13 million trying to salvage his campaign in South Carolina. He also had George W. Bush and his mother join him to campaign in South Carolina. It did not work, and he dropped out after the primary.

The “anti-establishment” mood didn’t seem to

34 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

DELEGATES EARNED

50 change. It is still 60-40 or more, but party leaders remain in denial about losing voter support.

There were 737,924 Republican votes. As in Iowa and New Hampshire, that vastly exceeded the forecast of 650,000 by the South Carolina GOP, which was already expecting a record.

As an open primary, Democrats and independents could vote in the Republican primary. Since there is also a competitive Democrat primary, that was not likely to have been a significant factor. Newt Gingrich had more votes on lower turnout in his surprise 2012 victory than Donald Trump in 2016.

In 2012, Newt Gingrich won with 40% as 603,770 voted in the Republican primary after only 445,499 voted in 2008. That illustrates the remarkably high turnout in 2016.

Unlike Iowa and New Hampshire, South Carolina has voted Republican by a fairly wide margin in 9 of the last 10 elections. Jimmy Carter won in 1976. It was a very reliably Southern Democrat state until 1964.

nevada Caucus RESULTS

Total Votes Cast: 75,216 Total Delegates at Stake: 30 Republican Caucus Winner: Donald Trump

CANDIDATE

VOTES CAST

%

Donald Trump

34,531

45.9%

14

Marco Rubio

17,940

23.9%

7

Ted Cruz

16,079

21.4%

6

Ben Carson

3,619

4.8%

2

John Kasich

2,709

3.6%

1

TOTALS

75,216

100%*

D

onald Trump got move votes in Nevada than Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz combined.

Perhaps more significantly, the record turnout of 75,216 Republican voters dwarfed the Democratic turnout of 12,233 on Saturday, February 20.

Hillary Clinton won with 54.6% of the vote, but that represented only 6,440 votes. That was much lower than Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, or Ted Cruz.

Media accounts reported this as though it was a great comeback for Hillary after a massive defeat in New Hampshire. She had previously led Bernie Sanders in Nevada polls by a very large margin, and instead he earned 47.2% in a narrow defeat. Some in the media had also downplayed her defeat in New Hampshire because it was the neighboring state to his home in Vermont, but proximity to New York was ignored. She won the Nevada caucus in 2008 against Barack Obama with 5,407 votes (50.8%) out of 10,648.

To put the 2016 results in context, in 2008 Mitt

DELEGATES EARNED

2016 PRIMARY/CAUCUS RESULTS

NV

FEBRUARY 23, 2016

30

Romney won Nevada with 22,646 votes, or 51.1% of the 44,315 total votes, but Romney did not win any delegates. Instead, John McCain won all 34 delegates with only 12.8% of the primary caucus votes because of the party rules in Nevada that year.

The caucus turnout in 2012 was depressed at a total of 32,963, with Mitt Romney winning easily with only 16,486 votes (50.0%) for 14 of 28 delegates That suggests the high turnout in 2016 may have been driven by the very competitive race this year.

Compared to Romney in 2008 or 2012, Trump did not achieve 50% support or more delegates.

Nevada has 6 Electoral College votes, and has voted for a Democrat in 4 of the last 6 elections, including twice for Barack Obama by a large but declining margin in 2008 and 2012. The state voted for a Republican in the six prior elections from 1968 to 1988, and is likely to vote Republican again in 2016.

Bill Clinton won with only 44% of the vote in 1996.

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 35

Feature Story | Analysis Democratic Perspective On election night, watch for the Democratic voter turnout relative to 1992 (Bill Clinton) On election night, watch for the 2008. relative Hillary to Democratic voter or turnout been Hillary doing 1992 (Bill Clinton)has or 2008. has been doing worse than in in her worse than her 2008 defeat, with turnout overall 2008 defeat, with down 30% from the 2008 election. turnout overall down 30% from the 2008 election.

Democratic Perspective

CLINTON 2008

CLINTON 2016

SANDERS 2016

TOTAL VOTES 2008

TOTAL VOTES 2016

Iowa

737

70,047

69,692

IA

2,501

140,548

New Hampshire

112,404

95,324

152,181

NH

287,557

252,485

South Carolina

140,990

271,514

95,978

SC

532,151

369,522

Nevada

5,407

6,440

5,785

NV

10,648

12,233

Alabama

223,089

309,928

76,399

AL

536,626

386,327

Arkansas

220,136

144,580

64,868

AR

314,234

209,448

Colorado

38,839

49,256

71,928

CO

120,411

121,184

Georgia

330,026

543,008

214,332

GA

1,060,851

757,340

Massachusetts

705,185

603,784

562,250

MA

1,263,764

1,166,034

Minnesota

68,994

73,510

118,135

MN

214,066

191,645

Oklahoma

228,480

139,338

174,054

OK

417,207

313,392

Tennessee

336,245

245,304

120,333

TN

624,764

365,637

Texas

1,462,734

935,080

475,561

TX

2,874,986

1,410,641

Vermont

59,806

18,335

115,863

VT

154,960

134,198

Virginia

349,766

503,358

275,507

VA

986,203

778,865

4,282,838

4,008,806

2,592,866

9,400,929

6,609,499

TOTALS

Decline from 2008

--

-6%

Bold numbers highlighted in red indicate declines in votes

36 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

Decline from 2008

--

--

-30%

Perspective For the March 15 Illinois Republican primary, look for a significant increase in turnout as in other 2016 primaries.

Turnout could significantly exceed 1 million votes, If the turnout is over 1.25 million, Illinois may while the Democratic turnout may be down sharply be competitive 2016 for the first time since from record 2008in levels.

If the turnout is 1.25 million, maythe be Reagan-Bush.

Toover achieve victoryIllinois in 2016, competitive in 2016 for the first time since ReaganRepublican turnout in in November will probably Bush. To achieve victory 2016, the Republican turnout November will probably need to exceed need to in exceed 2.5 million votes.

2.5 million votes.

The only contenders for the nomination after the prior primaries, however, will be:

Republican Perspective

Turnout could significantly exceed 1 million the March 15 Illinois Republican primary, votes,or while the Democratic turnout may be look for a significant increase in turnout as in down other sharply from record 2008 levels.

2016 primaries.

F

All of the candidates who have dropped out of the race will remain on the Illinois ballot.

All of the candidates who have dropped out of the  Donald Trump race will remain on the Illinois ballot.

The only contenders for the nomination after the  Ted Cruz prior primaries, however, will be:

DonaldRubio Trump  •Marco • Ted Cruz

Marco Be •sure toRubio vote for the delegates and Be sure to vote for the delegates and alternate alternate delegates who are pledged to delegates who are pledged to nominate the nominateofthe candidate yourcandidate choice. of your choice.

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 37

Historical Democratic Feature Story | Analysis Perspective for November While spending Illinois into bankruptcy and driving jobs away over the last 40 years, the Democratic Party has worked to grow their base from 2 million in the Reagan years to over 3 million in 2008 and 2012.

Historical Democratic The question for 2016 is whether record high turnout of the Obama Perspective fortheNovember

W

years will continue for Hillary Clinton. Her level of support may be smaller

hile spending Illinois into bankruptcy and That would be below 2.5 million votes again, rather Clinton who more effectively here. driving jobsthan awayBill over the lastin401992 years,or 1996, than overcampaigned 3 million. the Democratic Party has worked to grow Al Gore and John Kerry were also closer to that That would be below 2.5 million votes again, rather than over 3 million. level. Clinton, Gore, and Kerry won Illinois because of their base from 2 million in the Reagan years to over 3 million in 2008 and 2012. the closer decline to in the turnoutGore, since Reagan, Al Gore and John Kerry were also thatRepublican level. Clinton, and The question for 2016 is whether the record high who got 2.7 million votes in 1984.

Kerrywill won Illinoisfor because in the Republican since turnout of the Obama years continue Hillary of the Ifdecline Democratic turnout declines turnout in 2016, the Clinton. Her level of support maywho be smaller than Republicans Reagan, got 2.7 million votes in 1984.could win again.

Bill Clinton in 1992 or 1996, who campaigned more If Democratic turnout declines in 2016, the Republicans could win again. effectively here.

38 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

Perspective for November Party leadership choices have consequences. Illinois largely missed the “Reagan Revolution” of the 1980’s, as well as the economic boom which continued into the Bill Clinton years. Neither Bush was competitive In Illinois.

Historical Republican Perspective for November

While Springfield remained dominated by progressive Democrats, the party leadership wrote off Illinois as a hopeless “blue state”. It failed to grow the base of voters, which declined after the success of the Reagan years nationally.

P

arty leadership choices have consequences. Illi Presidential year Republican voter turnout remains nois largely missed the “Reagan Revolution” of the same as in 1940 at 1940 just over 2.0 million despite Presidential year Republican voter turnout remains the same as in at just the 1980’s, as well as the economic boom which population growth from 7.9 to 12.9 million. over 2.0 million to 12.9 million. continued into the Billdespite Clinton population years. Neithergrowth Bush from 7.9 Illinois Electoral College votes have declined was competitive In Illinois.

Illinois Electoral College votes have declined from 2929toto20 the loss from 20because because ofofthe loss of 9 Congressional While Springfield remained dominated by districts,of reflecting slow decline of 9 Congressional districts, reflecting theoff slow decline Illinois the relative to theof Illinois relative progressive Democrats, the party leadership wrote to the rest of America. In the same years, Texas grew Illinois hopeless “blue state”.

It failed to grow restasofaAmerica.

In the same years, Texasthe grew from 23 to 38. That means it from 23 to 38. That means it grew from smaller than base of voters, which declined after the success of the grew from smaller than Illinois to nearly twice the economic today.

Illinois to nearlysize twice the economic size today.

Reagan years nationally.

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 39

www.ChoosingIllinois.com SHARE YOUR OPINION Join the Conversation Online

A Time for Choosing is about making wise choices in 2016. Our families and generations to come will face the consequences of the decisions we make. Accountability requires oversight by citizens who choose to pay more attention to the consequences of elections, rather than just the lofty campaign promises. We are responsible for more than just voting.

We believe an important part of individual responsibility as citizens is to listen and share ideas with other successful people about how to learn from the past and do better each day.

In that spirit, please let us know what you think of the magazine and our new website. Follow and share our social media content via Facebook and Twitter.

Our goal is to make this a channel for successful people in Illinois to communicate with each other, become better informed, and work together to make a difference. This isn’t about producing another glossy magazine or promoting new or career politicians. It is about citizens turning Illinois around successfully together by their choices.

No politician has all the answers.

President Reagan said it best. Government isn’t the solution. it’s the problem. That doesn’t mean there is no role for government, but citizens need to pay more attention or the size and scope of government will run amok. The politicians eventually run out of other people’s money. They are bankrupting us all Please join us online, where we will share more research and news as well as useful resources and tools to empower citizens.

Our custom search tool makes it quick and easy to find news on any issue or candidate from many trusted “conservative” information sources. Try it today to research any topic of interest, and then share it with your friends.

Join the conversation online among concerned citizens. Be the leaders in your community.

www.ChoosingIllinois.com ChoosingIllinois

@ChoosingIL

Polling - Phone Banking Robo Calls - Data Manipulation Pennies per call empowers you to produce maximum results through minimal investment.

Data analytics provide trackable mechanisms for incorporating data into usable intelligence.

Customizable call types for quick polling, gotv, voter id, surveys, notifications and more.

Cover Story | Election Coverage

WHO’S THE BEST BET?

P

rofessional gamblers have had an interesting presidential primary season to work with for setting odds and placing bets in both the Democratic and Republican contests.

From the start, a lot of Democrats were putting their money on Hillary Clinton to win the nomination and hold onto the presidency for their party. For a while, the rise and sustained success of challenger Bernie Sanders caused some to want to hedge their bets.

Last summer, seventeen candidates entered the race for the Republican nomination making betting there a bit more challenging.

Early on, Donald Trump and 42 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

By John Biver

Ben Carson dominated. Later, Ted Cruz came to edge out Carson for second place. Another candidate that has never held public office, Carly Fiorina, appeared competitive, receiving praise for her debate performances.

What is clear is that the disappointing candidacies of John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012 had many Republicans looking for an outsider – or for the next Ronald Reagan – a nominee who can unite the party and win back the White House for the GOP. Who that Reagan-like candidate is, however, is much debated.

George W. Bush, the last Republican to win two presidential

terms, had a younger brother in the race until the South Carolina primary. Jeb Bush’s campaign never got traction, and his withdrawal had some saying the era of the Bush’s was over.

As this magazine goes to press, the race is down to the final four: Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and John Kasich.

Of the original seventeen candidates, five suspended their campaigns before the first votes were ever counted. In September both Rick Perry and Scott Walker withdrew. In November, Bobby Jindal followed suit. In December, Lindsey Graham and George Petaki both exited the race.

Following the Iowa Caucuses,

One of the most important questions voters are weighing is.. where they stand in proximity to the “establishment.”

Mike Huckabee ended his second try for the presidency, and was quickly followed by Rand Paul and Rick Santorum.

Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie, and Jim Gilmore packed it in following their poor showing in the New Hampshire primary, leaving six candidates heading into South Carolina.

So who has what it takes to be the “next Reagan”?

It depends upon who you ask, of course, and it depends upon what’s being considered. When he took office, Reagan was the oldest man to do so (age 69). He had spent most of his career outside of politics as an actor, then a corporate spokesman for G.E. Reagan’s staunchly conservative “A Time for Choosing” speech, in support of Barry Goldwater in October 1964, was hailed as his official entry onto the national political scene. He served as a two-term governor (California) and had been a candidate for president in 1968, and then in 1976 he challenged sitting Republican President Gerald Ford. After

winning the nomination in 1980 he defeated incumbent President Jimmy Carter.

When Donald Trump leaped to the lead in the national polls last summer, some claimed the “next Reagan” title for “The Donald.”

Others ridiculed him as not worthy of consideration.

Interestingly, Jeffrey Lord in the American Spectator compiled many quotes from people who had said the same thing about Reagan – and not just from liberal media outlets but also from conservative ones such as National Review.

Here’s an example from NR:

“Reagan’s image remains inchoate.… At the outset of his campaign, his image is largely that of the role-playing actor — pleasant on stage, but ill-equipped for the real world beyond the footlights. Reagan does not yet project the presidential image. He is not seen as a serious man.”

Trump’s critics haven’t let up, but neither has his popular support.

In that Spectator article Jeffrey Lord wrote that “while Donald Trump is

not Ronald Reagan, without doubt the rationale of their respective political opponents in the media and the Establishment wing of the Republican Party is almost literally identical. In some cases right down to a literal word or phrase.”

Which brings us to one of the all-important factors during this election cycle.

We’re no longer just considering a candidate for their policy positions, their consistency on those positions, their accomplishments, or for their temperament. With the antiestablishment sentiment seemingly at an all-time high, one of the most important questions voters are weighing is not just where the candidates stand when it comes to the issues, but also where they stand in proximity to the “establishment.”

If you add up the cumulative support for the candidates seen as “outsiders,” it’s easy to see the mind of the GOP primary electorate during this election year.

A Time for Choosing went to print just after the South Carolina primary.

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 43

Feature Story | Limited Government

REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT THROUGH A

Convention of States What is a Convention of States? Here is the definition from www.conventionofstates.com:

“A convention of states is a convention called by the state legislatures for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution. They are given power to do this under Article V of the Constitution.

It is not a constitutional convention. It cannot throw out the Constitution because its authority is derived from the Constitution.”

We asked Joliet resident Anthony Anderson why he has signed on to head-up the Illinois chapter of the Convention of States Project: “My participation with the Convention of States effort is because I want to do something – and this is something that can produce results. I want Illinois to be a part of the call for change in this country.”

The Convention of States Project? Many think it began with the publication of Mark Levin’s book, The Liberty Amendments – which opens with this: “I undertook this project not because I believe the Constitution, as originally structured, is outdated and 44 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

outmoded, thereby requiring modernization through amendments, but because of the opposite—that is, the necessity and urgency of restoring constitutional republicanism and preserving the civil society from the growing authoritarianism of a federal Leviathan.”

In his epilogue, titled “The Time for Action,” Levin writes that his “Liberty Amendments” and the call for a convention of states will be “assaulted by the government masterminds and their disciples” as extreme and heretical. In fact, however, it is the defenders of the status quo “who distort the Constitution’s text and trespass its purpose by actively pursuing its nullification and abandonment.”

Anthony Anderson agrees that this is an ambitious national effort – which some critics doubt is possible to pull off.

“What motivates me and drives me forward on a daily basis is the knowledge that there are many likeminded individuals who want to act,” says Anderson, “they’re not going to wait around for change to come – they’re willing to work to bring it about.”

Anthony Anderson is a decorated marine veteran and is currently with the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice, where he also serves as a member of the AFSCME Bargaining Committee

Q: So Illinoisans are responding to the Convention of States idea?

A: “I’m receiving 20-25 unique emails per hour – people wanting to sign the petition, or help out in other ways.”

That’s a lot of people. Anderson has been a Republican Precinct Committeeman and has served on the “outreach committee” for the Illinois Republican Party. That “committee” never met.

Anthony on the IL GOP:

“You would think that the Illinois Republican Party would have our best interest at stake. My twenty years of being involved with the GOP here is that the Republicans don’t seem to be interested in changing things.”

Anderson is convinced that the high level of interest being expressed by Illinoisans in the Convention of States Project has much to do with the condition of things here in Illinois. According to Anderson, 10,000 Illinoisans have expressed either support, or at least interest, since the launch of the project.

Here’s Anderson: “In Illinois, we were told that the election of Bruce Rauner as governor would bring change. So far, there’s a lot of fumbling going on. And a guy who makes $8,000 an hour seems like the wrong spokesperson to speak against raising the minimum wage.”

“Republicans told us nationally that we’d see change if we gave them control of the U.S. House. Nothing changed. ‘Just give us control of the U.S. Senate.’

Nada. We’re still not seeing much opposition from the opposition party..”

The Convention of States website describes the problem: “The Federal government has overreached its constitutionally-established boundaries and has its hands in almost every area of our lives.”

Illinois House Joint Resolution 61 has been introduced and currently has bi-partisan support.

The Resolution “Makes application to Congress

under the provisions of Article V of the Constitution of the United States for the calling of a convention of the states limited to proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.”

“My job is to manage it and organize the state,” Anderson said. “The grassroots level goal of the Convention of States effort is to appoint district captains in as many of the 118 districts as possible – with 80 percent coverage as the minimum. Each captain seeks to get at least 100 people to sign the petition and commit to calling their state legislators when it comes time to make an effort to get the Resolution adopted and signed by the governor.”

As with all legislation, Anderson says, “One of the best ways to get the attention of elected officials is to flood the Capitol switchboards at crunch time.”

While Anderson is no longer an elected Republican Precinct Committeeman, he is running as a Donald Trump delegate. Why Trump?

“When you believe in something you’ve got to act – and the reason I support an outsider like Trump is the same reason so many other people do. We’ve been sold a bill of goods from the Republican insiders, and that includes the conservatives.”

“Look at the Conservative Review Scorecard for our Illinois Republican delegation. Think about our past leaders in the IL GOP – and how they make headlines.

Denny Hastert. Aaron Schock. Dan Rutherford. And now Adam Kinzinger who ran as a Tea Party candidate yet now scores an ‘F’ on the CR scorecard.”

“The federal government is so big – it would seem the average person couldn’t do anything about it.

But they can by getting involved with the Convention of States – help us get petition signatures and then be ready to phone the General Assembly when the Resolution is called for a vote.”

To learn more visit www.ConventionOfStates.com.

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 45

Interview | John Tillman

John Tillman and the Illinois Policy Institute:

Can Illinois be the Texas of the Midwest?

by Nancy J. Thorner

I

t was on a mild day in early December 2015, when I traveled with great anticipation using the Metra Union Pacific North Line from my home in Lake Bluff to the Ogilvie Transportation Center in Chicago to conduct my personal interview with John Tillman, CEO of the Illinois Policy Institute, a 501(c)(3) organization. Tillman is considered one of the nation’s most prominent leaders of a state-based think tank – one that prides itself on independent research and education to generate policy solutions aimed at promoting personal freedom and prosperity in Illinois.

From its Springfield, Illinois, office headed by Executive Vice President Kristina Rasmussen, the Institute shares its policy solutions with Illinois’ decision-makers, helping turn liberty principles into marketable policies that become law.

Through Tillman’s superb leadership at the Illinois Policy Institute, the think tank has become a model for libertybased organizations across the country. Accordingly, Tillman is frequently asked to consult with other nonprofit, free-market

46 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

organizations on marketing and organizational strategy. In 2011 Tillman won the prestigious Roe Award for his leadership, innovation and accomplishments in the world of public policy.

Here in Illinois, Tillman has transformed what many wrote off as a blue state into a place ripe for free-market reforms with the re-launch of the Illinois Policy Institute and the founding of key organizations, including the Liberty Justice Center, a publicinterest law firm, and the Illinois Opportunity Project. Through appearances on the FOX News Channel, FOX Business and the BBC, and in the The Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times and other news outlets, Tillman ably advances the free-market message of the Illinois Policy Institute. Before joining the world of public policy, Tillman was a businessman and entrepreneur, and he continues to be. He resides in Chicago’s north suburbs with his wife, Julie, and daughter, Lauren.

With the above in mind, and with a list of questions in hand, a taxi delivered me to the

Chicago headquarters of the Illinois Policy Institute at 190 South LaSalle Street. Having completed my security clearance as a preregistered guest to see Tillman, I stepped off the elevator at Suite 1500 where I was cordially greeted by a receptionist and shortly thereafter by Tillman, who had been alerted to my arrival.

This being my first visit to Suite 1500, I was duly impressed and thought how fitting that such a fine facility should be home to the Illinois Policy Institute. Escorted down a well-lit hallway to Tillman’s office, I could see equally well-lit glass-fronted offices and tables at which Illinois Policy Institute staff members were hard at work.

Seated comfortably in Tillman’s office, my interview officially began.

Q: What has to happen in 2016 to enable more people to stop despairing and instead enter into the fight, and especially keep more Illinoisans from leaving the state?

A: Seemingly absent in John Tillman is a hint of pessimism. Ever an optimist, Tillman spoke of the past and of all the challenges this

nation has overcome. Cited was the depression of the 20’s; FDR and the mindset of dependency he created; Jim Crow and the racial segregation enforced in the South; threats posed by the Cold War; and the stagflation of the late 70’s and early 80’s.

As to keeping Illinoisans happy campers within the state so they don’t pick up and move, Tillman, without a second’s hesitation, indicated how making the state prosperous again will create conditions for opportunities that will benefit all of its residents.

And just how might prosperity be restored to Illinois? Enumerated in quick sequence by Tillman were the following reforms deemed essential to restoring the state’s prosperity: 1) regulatory reform that makes it easier to hire and invest in workers; 2) unemployment insurance reform that doesn’t continually punish employers with ever-higher rates; 3) reform of the public-employee pension system to create fairness for taxpayers while also securing retirement benefits already earned by government workers; and 4) reform for runaway health insurance benefits that offer goldplated benefits with little financial contribution by employees.

Mr. Tillman suggested that reform won’t be easy, as entrenched interests have been the beneficiaries under the present system. Union power is feared because their demands are strong and uncompromising. In keeping with Tillman’s spirit of optimism, he continues to believe that “Illinois is well-positioned to become the Texas of the Midwest, but it will take political courage.”

Q: It’s been an unprecedented

year without an overall budget.

Yesterday (12/7) a piecemeal $3 billion spending bill was passed, but the reality is that things are getting worse. With $214 billion in debt, and only $30 billion in assets, is Governor Rauner tackling Illinois’ problems in the right way given that little of “his side” of the argument seems to be reaching voters?

A: Tillman reassured me that Gov. Bruce Rauner is going about things in the right way. Tillman went on to say that he considers the budget impasse a victory. Why? Because Rauner did not capitulate and raise taxes as others have done in the past.

Tillman gave two reasons for not fretting about the budget impasse: • If the present trend continues, at the end of the fiscal year, which is June 30, 2016, the Illinois government will for the first time in decades, spend about the same as the revenue that came in. That’s why, despite all the challenges, the budget impasse has been fiscally responsible and why the governor deserves credit for holding the line on spending.

• If major reform is the outcome of the impasse, higher economic growth will result. As for tax increases, they would only be considered by Rauner if his major reform measures are also adopted: Redistricting reform for political maps, term limits on elected officials, a property-tax freeze with cost-control ability for local governments, and workers’ compensation reform are among the key reforms needed.

As to the second part of Question 2, What is Governor Rauner doing right? Three positive items were noted as to Rauner’s plan of action:

1. Passing a balanced budget for the first time and sticking to it. 2) Passing measures to enact progrowth reforms such as workers’ compensation reforms, reform of project labor agreements and prevailing wages, all of which will keep more jobs in Illinois, along with the tax revenues that flow from those jobs. 3) For ALL TAXPAYERS to have a seat at the table, rich, poor and in-between.

Q: The Illinois Policy Institute is doing yeoman’s work. How can we get more of what your organization is doing and producing in front of our fellow Illinoisans?

A: Not shy about tooting his organization’s horn, John Tillman implored every citizen to sign up as a subscriber to the Illinois Policy Institute (www.illinoispolicy.org) to keep abreast of research being done and to read the posted news items, almost all of which are applicable to Illinois. But it didn’t stop there.

Tillman further suggested that the same request be made to those on our personal e-mail lists and also as Facebook postings. With pride, Tillman spoke of the huge amount of traffic being directed to the Illinois Policy Institute’s website.

Said Tillman, “It’s as big as it has ever been.” A figure of 250,000 hits was given, which is a good sign that the electorate is electronically engaged. This a good volume for a public policy organization but only reflects a small fraction of the Institute’s total marketing output.

Editor’s note: Please visit us online at www.ChoosingIllinois.com to read the entire interview with Mr. Tillman.

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 47

Feature Story | Illinois: Stay or Go?

It’s A Time for Choosing

Whether to Stay or Leave Illinois The Illinois Policy Institute’s Michael Lucci wrote this last year:

“Gallup released a stunning poll that shows 50 percent of Illinoisans want to leave the state, the highest percentage of any state nationally. This comes a week after Illinois’ worst-in-the nation performance in a Gallup poll that showed one in four Illinoisans consider Illinois to be the worst possible place to live.

If Illinois government doesn’t change the way it does things, Illinois needs to brace for more out-migration.”

IPI reports that “Illinoisans are moving to states like Texas, Indiana, and Florida, and the biggest reasons include high Illinois tax rates and the impact of powerful government unions.”

In a 2014 study, IPI reported that “More than 850,000 people have moved out of Illinois since 1995, which comes out to a rate of 1 resident leaving every 10 minutes”!

What about the people willing to stay? We spoke with two Illinoisans about why they’re not moving – and what they see as the cure for what ails the Land of Lincoln.

48 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

In both cases, the names are changed at the request of the speaker. Why did they ask to remain anonymous? While many Illinoisans might think that political retribution is something that exists only within Democratic Party politics, long time veterans of the Illinois GOP know well the decadeslong tradition of revenge taken out against anyone who dares criticize the powers that be.

Rebekah is a business owner, wife, mother, and for the first time in the past few years has become a political activist.

“I never thought I’d move out of the state – but before Rauner got elected I was actually starting to think about it,” she said.

“It’s simple: everyone knows in their personal life and in business that you can’t continue to spend more than you take in as Illinois’ government does.”

When asked to comment on what the solution might be, Rebekah answered, “Let me not answer the question just yet. Just let me talk for a little bit. To me, there is some hopelessness that has developed.”

Here are her words:

I feel like we’re set up to fail. That we’re going to continue to fail.

So yes, there is hopelessness. You look at the number of men in their fifties who have lost their jobs. I know many of them. Then we have the generation just starting their working life – and for the first time you have the young people coming out of college with ungodly school loans. You also have people well into their 30s and even 40s still paying on their school loans.

When I was thirty I was saving money for a down payment on a house.

Worse, those young people are coming out of school and there aren’t a lot of jobs available. The economy has been stagnant for many years.

Of course a lot of this has to do with Obamacare.

In my own company I can’t afford to offer health care benefits. Fortunately most of my employees only want to work part time.

We’ve got all these policies that keep us from growing. Economic growth used to be driven by individual initiative – these days you can’t just open up a business and hire a bunch of people. There’s too much control over every single thing we do.

It’s the sum total of these things that creates a sense of hopelessness.

I have a college-aged kid who didn’t want to vote – and I’m involved politically! He didn’t want to vote because he didn’t believe it made any difference. His attitude is – ‘This country stinks.’

So I show him what happened in the election of Bruce Rauner. I worked my butt off – night after night after night. I work full time, I’m an elected township trustee, I have a family, yet I worked like crazy up until election day. Rauner won. It does make a difference. You just have to step up.

Taxpayers despair because of the burden placed on them. Americans that work one or more jobs are put upon because there are just too many handouts available for others – even to those who are here on

work visas. For example, in the Wisconsin tourism industry, many unemployed local residents can’t afford to work for $10 or $15 dollars an hour, so Russians and other eastern Europeans are brought in.

Big government policies have impacted our culture – people receiving government benefits too often settle into a comfortable lifestyle.

What I’d like to see is for anyone getting welfare or paid by tax dollars to not be able to vote. What we have are millions of people going to the polls to vote themselves higher pay!

We just can’t keep funding everything there is known to mankind. We can’t afford it. Our kids can’t afford it.

We’ve got to stop the spending, but that won’t happen until more people step up and get involved.

The other person we spoke with has worked both in the business world and has had a foot inside Illinois politics for many years. Let’s call him James.

We asked for his take on the state of the state – and what you see as the solution: The new Republican governor seems to have frozen the system – people are st anding still.

Bruce Rauner’s staff is not giving him good advice.

He’s got counselors that don’t understand that the environment has changed.

With this budget impasse, I don’t see a scenario where Rauner succeeds. He’s certainly not winning thus far when 91 percent of state spending is court ordered or otherwise automatic.

I’ve seen nothing when it comes to the needed structural reforms – where the money is – Medicaid, K-12 and higher ed, state pensions – there’s nothing changing, in fact, the schools received more money with Rauner’s help.

Regarding the issues of the re-map, tort reform, and workman’s comp, Madigan will want a tax increase for any deal. That will make it impossible for Rauner to win reelection because he won’t have fundamentally changed anything. He won’t have done anything about the big ticket items.

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 49

Feature Story | Illinois: Stay or Go?

We just can’t keep funding everything there is known to mankind. We can’t afford it.

Our kids can’t afford it. We’ve got to stop the spending, but that won’t happen until more people step up and get involved.

Yes, there are still three full years left, but he needs to stop playing small ball. You can’t give the teachers more money and the unions a good deal.

The truth is, people were expecting (Wisconsin Governor) Scott Walker. They were expecting more progress, but Walker has a Republican General Assembly.

What it really looks like is a guy who had the money to get himself elected governor, but then hired some of the same old political crew that has presided over many years of Republican Party failures in Illinois.

What’s needed is for state house and state senate Republicans to form a freedom caucus, and propose serious structural reform ideas for the big ticket items. Pensions, debt, medicaid, K-12 and higher ed.

They need to take it to the people of the state – sell it as a contract – a way to solve the state’s problems.

Currently, they’re not putting anything out there.

Some might suggest that they lack the intellectual firepower to offer alternatives, and there sure doesn’t appear to be the political will to lead – certainly not with the GOP caucus leadership. They think that if you’re in the minority party you don’t offer

50 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

alternatives since the majority will then just use the material as target practice.

I think they should offer alternative solutions – make it interesting – give the citizenry something to consider.

It needs to be generated from within the GOP caucuses. It’s hard to ask a single legislator to stand up. There has to be a lot of work done behind the scenes – to bring colleagues on board, to craft policies – so they can say to the public we don’t have to do it the old way – “here is an alternative.”

When did we become a state where only a handful of people decide everything? The sum total of public policy creativity resides with five or six people.

Legislators used to work collectively. It wasn’t just the leadership shoving things down everyone’s throat.

These leaders have too much power – stipends, assistant leadership roles, committee assignments.

That prevents “mini caucuses” from forming – it prevents groups of legislators taking the initiative.

Instead of complaining – legislators need to step up.

It’s been too long since rank and file legislators have challenged their leaders. It can’t be done from the outside. It has to be done from the inside.

Book Review | Plunder and Deceit

BIG GOVERNMENT’S EXPLOITATION OF YOUNG PEOPLE AND THE FUTURE Here is the opening sentence of radio talk show host Mark Levin’s new book:

“Can we simultaneously love our children but betray their generation and generations yet born?”

In the next paragraph he answers that question in the affirmative by writing that while parents may “naturally and tenaciously guard their young children from threat and peril... many of these same parents wittingly and unwittingly” tolerate “disadvantageous and even grievous public policies that jeopardize not only their children’s future but the welfare of successive generations.”

What policies are Levin referring to?

Just what you’d expect. Government debt levels. Unfunded entitlement programs. Medicare and Obamacare. He dedicated chapters to each, along with education, immigration, the environment, the economy and national security.

The policies now in place, Levin writes, destroy “the whole original fabric of society,” leaving successive generations little knowledge of and respect for “the institutions of their forefathers.” Paraphrasing Edmund Burke, Levin writes that “society relies on an inter-generational continuum of the past, the living, and the unborn.”

Levin warns that these deleterious public policies will have a “calamitous” outcome. Our country is being degraded and disassembled: “In modern America, the unraveling of the civil society had been subtly persistent but is now intensifying.”

Utopian statism is being embraced, guaranteeing that “the quality of life of future generations” will be diminished.

Many of us have seen the polling data Levin cites here: “Americans are registering record levels of anxiety about the opportunities available to younger generations and are pessimistic about the nation’s long term prospects.” According to Levin, most Americans direct their blame at elected leaders in Washington.

One of the biggest challenges is, as Levin notes, “younger people’s dearth of life experiences and their quixotic idealism make them especially vulnerable to simplistic appeals and emotional manipulation for utopia’s grandiosity and social causes.” These “are proclaimed achievable only through top-down governmental designs.”

Unfortunately for the dreamers, Levin writes, the “laws of economics, like the laws of science, are real, and unlike the utopian images and empty assurances of expedient and self-aggrandizing politicians and bureaucrats.”

Mark Levin’s Plunder and Deceit is a must read since “The time is urgent for the ruling generation and the rising generation—that is, parents and their progeny—to step up in defense of their joint interests and in opposition to their common foe—a government unmoored from its constitutional beginnings and spinning out of control.”

Reviewed by John Biver, who has read and recommends all of Mark Levin’s books.

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 51

Interview | Missouri Operative

The View From a Neighbor: A Missouri Republican Operative Weighs in on What Can Be Done in Illinois

I

llinois was a “red state” for decades – having voted for a Republican president eight of the ten presidential elections leading up to 1992. In 1998 Illinois voters chose both a Republican governor (George Ryan) and a Republican U.S. Senator (Peter Fitzgerald). The GOP held a majority in the state Senate for the ten years leading up to the 1992 elections, when they lost both the Senate and the Governor’s race for the first time since 1972.

Since then, it’s been a different story. Democrats have dominated both houses in the General Assembly, the governorship, and the races for the U.S. Senate for the past 13 years.

The tale of the Illinois Republican Party isn’t very different from many other states – the ebb and flow of public support for one party over another is often in flux. The difference here, some would argue, is how the Illinois GOP leaders have responded to the challenge.

We recently talked with a Republican Party activist in neighboring Missouri, where the situation was

52 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

even worse for Republicans. There, Democrats had control for sixty years. Voters would occasionally elect a Republican governor or U.S. Senator, but the GOP could never win control of the state House or state Senate.

In the early 2000s, key Republicans said “we’ve had enough.” Some of the Republican leaders knew that Missouri is a conservative state at its core. “You lose Kansas City and St. Louis, but overall it’s a very conservative state.”

Here is more of what our Missouri friend had to say – and it doesn’t sound complicated:

Republicans can win the majority with candidates who will bend on a few key issues and thus can win the seats. They’ll be with the Republican majorities on key issues like “right to work,” which was a big issue in the last election.

There were 12 seats that Republicans shouldn’t hold – they’re 60+ percent Democrat seats – and those Republicans voted with labor – and the GOP

leadership in the legislature knew they were going to vote with the Democrats on labor friendly legislation.

“Right to work” legislation passed in the regular session but didn’t have enough votes to override the governor’s veto.

Everyone knows that it’s easier for Republicans to win tough races in a midterm year as opposed to a presidential cycle. So fifteen years ago a group of Republicans decided to create a company – and it’s organized like a company – that has four full time staff which works year-round to recruit candidates, develop message and study which districts to target.

For viable campaigns that are able to raise money – this “company” can take on the responsibility of some of the negative campaigning. This way, the GOP candidates don’t come across as nasty people.

Republicans now hold 118 out of 164 seats in the state house, and 24 of 34 in the state senate.

Of course a big difference here is that Missouri has term limits. The Missouri Constitution was amended in 1992 to allow no more than 16 years in office – 8 years in the state house, 8 years in the state senate.

That helps a great deal since open seats are easier to win – the benefits of incumbency exist at the state legislative level just as they do at the congressional level.

When term limits passed 25 years ago things improved as more seats opened up sooner.

If Illinois is as conservative at its core as Missouri is, the same game plan could be executed there. It won’t happen without political will and organization, however. And you’re not going to be successful for a couple of cycles – it’s hard – you have to set up money and quality staff.

In Missouri this “company” involves itself in about fifty races every election cycle. In additional to the usual polling, mail, and other outreach efforts, a lot of door to door is required by the candidates, their staffs, and their volunteers. It’s not uncommon for 10,000 doors to be knocked on during a two-year cycle.

The leadership has to want to win because it takes a lot of work, money, and execution to reach enough voters to change “D” seats into “R” seats.

And Governor Rauner can’t do it alone. It works best if one person or one political office doesn’t control all facets of the operation. It must be a team effort, with many people helping to shape and execute the plan.

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases:

IF IT MOVES, TAX IT. IF IT KEEPS MOVING, REGULATE IT. AND IF IT STOPS MOVING, SUBSIDIZE IT.

—Ronald Reagan

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 53

Feature Story | Property Tax Rates

Cook County’s Property Tax Assessment (A Process Convoluted by Design)

T

wo of the nation’s premier conservative think tanks, the Tax Foundation and the Illinois Policy Institute, have recently reported the details of the property tax burden shouldered by Illinois taxpayers.

In an article titled, “How High Are Property Taxes in Your State?” the Tax Foundation’s Jared Walczak notes the variety of ways property taxes are assessed in the different states, and then “cuts through this clutter” in a report and map, “presenting effective tax rates on owner-occupied housing.”

“This is the average amount of residential property tax actually paid, expressed as a percentage of home value. Some states with high property taxes, like New Hampshire and Texas, rely heavily on property taxes in lieu of other major tax categories; others, like New Jersey 54 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

and Illinois, impose high property taxes alongside high rates in the other major tax categories.

New Jersey has the highest effective rate at 2.38% and is followed closely by Illinois (2.32%), New Hampshire (2.15%), and Connecticut (1.98%).”

The Illinois Policy Institute’s Austin Berg examined “the politicians getting rich off Chicago’s property-tax scheme”: “Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan and Chicago Alderman Ed Burke both run law firms specializing in the lucrative field of Cook County propertytax appeals, one of the most inefficient, corrupt systems in urban politics. Illinois Senate President John Cullerton is a member of a large law firm that handles a range of issues, including property-tax law. The

three have held political office in Illinois for a combined 126 years.”

“The property-tax-assessment process in Cook County,” Berg writes, “is convoluted by design.”

In simple terms, the Assessor’s Office “assesses the value of every property in the county. […]

Property owners can then appeal that assessed value in a number of ways. […] Flawed property valuations and the process required to fix them are a cash cow for law firms, including those of Madigan, Burke and Cullerton, which know what strings to pull.”

“What doesn’t add up is nearly two-thirds of those appeals were successful: an astonishing number that reveal a faulty assessment process ripe for savvy attorneys.

Any way you slice it, taxpayers lose.”

6th Congressional District | Peter Roskam

congressman peter roskam:

Conservative? Moderate?

Either Way, A Success Story

By Warner Todd Huston

R

epresentative Peter Roskam is once again asking Illinois’ Sixth District voters to return him to Washington. But while his career in D.C. seemed forever on the upswing, in 2014 he took a tumble and lost his bid to retain the leadership position he earned in the House of Representatives.

So, now that he is out of leadership, what is Roskam’s message for his re-election?

Even though Roskam was Chief Deputy Whip, he isn’t as well known as many in Congress. Roskam isn’t a showy politician, and while he

does his share of media, the fiveterm Congressman is not a spotlight seeker or a camera chaser.

So, just who is this man asking for a sixth term in Washington?

For one thing, the life-long Illinoisan is well respected among House Republicans and is thought of as a man many can work with. As an example of the general good feelings Roskam engenders, in October of 2015 one of his colleagues told the National Review, “there’s a lot of deep personal relationships and there’s a lot of respect for him.”

Few House members have anything bad to say about the Illinois Congressman, so one wonders how he ended up on the outside looking in when the contest to retain his leadership position ended in a loss to Louisianan Steve Scalise in 2014.

In an exclusive interview, we asked the Congressman about that upending leadership race.

“In 2014 I shared the frustrations of millions of conservatives who, by and large, didn’t feel we had adequate representation in Washington,” Roskam said. “I threw my hat into the ring in an attempt to change that. I think a lot of

folks have been surprised by the way leadership races have shaken out over the past couple years.

I’m just focused on being the best representative for the people of the sixth district that I can possibly be.”

The Roskam Record

Still, Roskam has a record voters can use to guide their decisions for 2016. He has been one of the most successful conservative-leaning members of the Illinois delegation.

Roskam has a long history in government, both at the state and national level, and his record for fiscal responsibility, working to defeat overweening regulations, and taking pro-life positions is beyond question. He has a solid grasp of budgeting and fiscal policy and has experience in leadership in both state as well as national government.

As the Representative from the Sixth District, Roskam, a life-long resident of Illinois, has been in Congress since 2007, and quickly rose up through the ranks of Republican leadership to become the Party’s Chief Deputy Whip in 2011, mostly due to his solid grasp of fiscal policy.

Yet, Roskam’s career wasn’t born in Congress. The Wheaton resident March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 55

6th Congressional District | Peter Roskam was first sent to Springfield in 1993 as the representative of 40th District and by the year 2000 he ran and won an Illinois Senate seat for the 20th District. While he failed in his first bid for Congress in 1998 (a respectable 40 percent to 45 percent to Judy Biggert), he later went on to win in a squeaker, beating Democrat Tammy Duckworth 51 percent to 49 percent in 2006.

Of his 2006 campaign, Roskam said, “I had the privilege to work for the late, legendary Congressman Henry Hyde. When he retired in 2006 I felt the western suburbs needed a strong leader to continue his legacy. I was proud to earn the endorsement of an icon of the pro-life movement and a man who fought tirelessly to keep our nation safe. I strive to work each and every day to continue his work and ensure the United States does not relinquish its leadership role on the world stage.”

After his first winning congressional contest, Roskam won re-election handily. In fact, in 2014 he bested Democrat Michael Mason by as much as a 34 percent margin.

We asked Roskam why he has won re-election so easily. He said Sixth District voters “appreciate” his “common-sense conservative values.” He added that his office is a responsibility he will never take for granted.

From Springfield to DC

Pro-Life and 2nd Amendment

As a state Senator Roskam was a fiscal warrior, having authored or co-sponsored a whopping fourteen bills to cut taxes and worked to cut the budget and scuttle useless state programs.

Sadly, since the time Roskam left the state legislature to head to Washington, the state of Illinois has spiraled out of fiscal control.

When he was still Whip, Roskam was part of the team that instituted actual budget cuts for the first time in nearly 100 years. He noted during the 2010 session of Congress that the budget cut proposals then leading the discussion marked the first time in many decades Congress was actually discussing cuts as opposed to simply claiming that a lower rate in the growth of spending was a “cut.”

In fact, when asked what he is most proud of in Washington, Roskam pointed to his fiscal goals and his work on taxes as main accomplishments.

“I was extremely proud to see my Taxpayer Bill of Rights and other IRS reform provisions signed into law,” Roskam said. But he added, “There’s still more work to be done to ensure the IRS is never again used as a political weapon and I will continue to lead that fight.”

Roskam also has a very solid prolife record, receiving a 100 percent rating from National Right To Life (NRLC)--one of the nation’s leading pro-life organizations--and a corresponding zero rating from abortion-pushing NARAL. But his pro-life record goes all the way back to his first days in the public eye.

In his days in Springfield, for instance, he vigorously opposed fetal stem cell research. In 2004 Roskam voted against a proposal to raise $1 billion in taxes on cosmetic surgery to fund stem cell research. He opposes abortion, but does support a “life of the mother” exemption. He does not support exemptions for rape or incest.

Roskam has also earned an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association in the past. When he was in the state legislature, and before the state was the last to finally pass concealed carry, Roskam sponsored a bill that would have allowed retired military and police officers to carry.

Unfortunately, anti-gun Democrats killed the bill at that time.

As Whip Roskam went on record as supporting stronger border security and stated his opposition to the U.S. Senate’s Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007.

Back in 2006 during a candidate forum, Roskam also angered

There’s still more work to be done to ensure the IRS is never again used as a political weapon and I will continue to lead that fight.

56 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

liberals by calling Global Warming claims “junk science.”

As for business groups, the Illinoisan usually rates in the 80 and 90th percentile among most groups and lobbyists who focus on the business sector. He has also been a staunch advocate for free trade legislation.

But even though a look at his record might cause a voter to assume he is a very conservative politician, Roskam has only been deemed a “moderate” conservative by some reckoning. This was likely due mostly to his votes to go along with leadership when he was Whip.

For instance, conservative advocacy groups such as The Club for Growth, Freedom Works, and the Heritage Foundation all rated him lower than the more strict conservatives in D.C. He recently received a 70, a 71, and 55 lifetime percent rating respectively from those groups. On the other hand, Roskam was awarded a B from the National Taxpayers Union and a 100 percent from Americans for Tax Reform.

Whatever his ratings might be, Roskam’s votes show that in many respects he is arguably more conservative than John Boehner, Kevin McCarthy, or current House Speaker Paul Ryan.

We asked Roskam how conservatism has changed since he first entered public life.

“Conservatism has changed over the past decade or so in that individuals have a greater voice and are more connected to the political process than ever before,” he said.

“The advent of social media and other organizing tools have made it easier than ever for the average person to stay informed and make his or her opinions known.”

Roskam felt this to be an “overwhelmingly” positive change.

“The Tea Party harnessed these new forces and helped secure a conservative majority in Congress in 2010.

Roskam says his “strong record of fighting for common-sense conservative values” is one he is proud of and he and looks forward to once again making his case before the voters.

There is Still More Work to Be Done

The Sixth District Rep. believes his work isn’t done in Washington, D.C. and has harsh words for President Obama.

“President Obama’s woefully misguided nuclear deal with Iran presents all sorts of geopolitical challenges for the United States and our allies,” Roskam noted.

“The Iranian regime now has over $100 billion with which they can continue to support terrorism across the globe. We must do everything in our power to protect ourselves and our interests from this threat.”

“There’s still more work to be done on the IRS front (see above).

I’m also interested in continuing to expose and combat Medicare fraud and abuse.”

Roskam has criticized Obama many times, of course. The Congressman led the initiative to scale back regulatory overreach in

2011 when he noted the EPA was making rules despite the fact that science and technology hadn’t even caught up with the Obama administration’s overly stringent new rules.

Roskam then pointed out that Obama’s strict EPA rules were making the bad economy worse.

“This economy can be great.

But right now the heavy hand of government is holding down this great economy. Regulations need to be rational to facilitate growth.

You cannot program the U.S. economy. It is a thing of beauty but it can’t be programed,” he said.

In all, Roskam has a fairly conservative record but can’t be called a “hardcore” conservative in today’s vein.

Finally, we asked if Roskam had a message for his constituents.

“I’ve hung a painting in my office that features a quote from Thomas Jefferson,” Roskam said.

“The ground of liberty is to be gained by inches,” Jefferson wrote.

“We must be contented to secure what we can get from time to time and eternally press forward for what is yet to get. It takes time to persuade men to do even what is for their own good.”

“I take great solace in Jefferson’s words,” Roskam said, “especially when we, as conservatives, experience temporary setbacks or don’t bring about the level of change we’d like to see as quickly as we’d like to see it. I try to remember that it’s important to celebrate each and every inch we gain in our noble pursuit of liberty.”

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 57

Illinois 26th Senate | Dan Duffy

Illinois at the Crossroads The Democratic machine must be held to account

R

epublican State Senator Dan Duffy was elected to the first of his two terms in 2008. He represents the 26th District which includes portions of southeast McHenry County, southwest Lake County, and northwest Cook County. Last September, Senator Duffy announced that he wouldn’t be running for a third term. ATFC spoke with the senator recently about the state’s economic climate and the politics of Springfield.

Governor Rauner has the bully pulpit

We are at a crossroads in Illinois. The election of Governor Bruce Rauner is an opportunity to hold the Democratic machine accountable for their actions during the past decade of irresponsible spending.

He has the bully pulpit to highlight all of the corruption and mismanagement that has been happening since Democratic Party Chairman and Illinois state house Speaker Mike Madigan has been in office.

Q: Is enough of what the Governor wants people to know getting out?

A: No. But the governor is a very smart man. He’s an extremely successful businessman who has really set goals throughout his life and reached every goal from what I can see.

This goal is a little more complicated because the governor doesn’t have governmental experience in the past. So I think he’s going through a process of learning how to work with the legislature – and what 58 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

he can and cannot do on his own without help from other people. He has to work with a lot of different departments also that I think is kind of new for him.

There are some very unique dynamics in the state of Illinois that Governor Rauner is experiencing and learning to maneuver in his first year in office.

Rauner is a very smart person but it’s new for him.

Speaker Mike Madigan has been there for 44 years. And Governor Bruce Rauner has been there for 11 months.

So of course Mike Madigan is going to know some of the ins and outs of Springfield a little bit better than Bruce Rauner does – but Bruce Rauner is a quick learner, and he’s coming up to speed fast.

It’s going to take time to get everything accomplished. We didn’t get into this position over night and we’re not going to get out of it over night either. I believe the best person to steer us out of this mess is Bruce Rauner. So I think we’re very blessed to have someone of Bruce Rauner’s talents and abilities to take on this job.

There are not a lot of people in his position that are as successful as he is that would want to do this and take on this challenge that is often a no-win situation.

Most of the people like him would probably want to go and buy a little island and enjoy the rest of their life. They wouldn’t want to take on this mess.

Q: What can the General Assembly Republicans do to help Rauner get his message out and succeed?

A: That’s a really good question that I’ve never had anyone ask me before. That’s a great question.

...people all over Chicago are ready to start voting for some options other than the Mike Madigan machine – Republicans just aren’t giving them the chance by fielding good candidates.

Right now I think a lot of Republicans in the Senate and in the House look at Bruce Rauner as their savior who is going to come in with a cape and solve everything on his own while they sit back and watch.

I think the Republicans in the Senate and the House need to get off their butts and they need to start helping him and start doing some of the heavy lifting.

Stop watching and start helping.

They should do things like not rely on the media to get their message out because the media never seems to get their message out in the right way. All the press outlets have their own specific agenda. Each newspaper has its own twist, it’s own bias. I think General Assembly Republicans need to do things like use social media such as Facebook to reach more people so they can win a broad base of support.

In a state that’s controlled by Democrats, every elected Republican in office is there because they have a lot of support in their own district – voters who want them there. So they have a lot of people who follow them and support and have worked real hard for them to get them elected. They need to activate and motivate those people through social media to help get the message out to help Governor Rauner.

They also need to stop relying on Governor Rauner to raise all the money.

For years the Republicans have been getting their butts kicked by the Democrats who have been far out-raising the amount of money the GOP does each election cycle. And if Governor Rauner wasn’t involved in this election cycle once again the Democrats, led by Speaker Madigan and state Senate President John Cullerton, would have far out-raised the amount of money we did.

Incumbents need to stop relying on the Governor – they need to support themselves in their own districts. That way Bruce Rauner can use his money to bring in new candidates – not support the incumbents, the candidates that have been around for a while should be able to support themselves.

We need Rauner and his vast fundraising machine to raise money for new people so we can make Mike Madigan spread out his resources in campaigns all over the entire state.

That’s how we’re going to start changing the dynamics in Springfield.

Our main objective is 60-30.

Q: 60-30, 60-30, 60-30?

A: Nobody understands that better than Mike Madigan. 60-30, 60-30, 60-30. Sixty seats in the House and thirty seats in the Senate constitute a majority.

That’s all Mike Madigan cares about. You can call him names – you can kick him while he’s down – you can do whatever you want – he really doesn’t care. All he cares about is 60-30 – whether he retains the majority in the House and Senate.

That’s all we should be focusing on too. We need to change the numbers. Rauner understands this and he’s trying to raise money to win more races.

But Rauner shouldn’t have to be involved in races where there are already incumbents. Especially incumbents that have been there 10, 15, 20 years.

There are some people who have been in office for more than ten years who still can’t raise money. They need to be covering their own districts so Rauner can expand out to other areas where we haven’t been involved in the past.

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 59

Illinois 26th Senate | Dan Duffy We need to challenge Mike Madigan in those districts. Then we can change the 60-30 into our favor.

We need to focus on 60-30. That’s how we start taking back the government in the state of Illinois and bringing in some balance.

Now is the time for people to step up and get involved in Illinois state government.

People might have been discouraged or frustrated in the past, but now is the time to rise up because now we actually have a leader in the governor’s office. We haven’t had that before. Now for the first time Mike Madigan is back on the ropes. He’s getting challenged from all angles.

Not only has Rauner raised far more than Madigan has ever before, but Rauner is also challenging him in the media, he’s challenged him by taking some of his big Democratic donors – some business leaders are going over to Rauner because of the business climate.

Rauner has relationships with many Democratic Party leaders like Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

Now is the time we can start taking back the state but people need to get activated. People need to get involved and help Rauner. It’s not just legislators in the G.A. that need to get off their butt and start doing something – it’s the people across the state of Illinois.

I know Republicans and conservatives are frustrated, but now is the time to act.

If we look at other states, for instance, West Virginia, where over 60 percent of the voters have been registered Democrats – in 2014, for the first time in 80 years the people were fed up, and they rose up and elected Republicans to majorities in their state house and senate. First time in 80 years they elected a Republican speaker of the house. If a state like West Virginia can rise up and change and turn the whole system around, then the state of Illinois certainly can.

Q: Many people are choosing to move out of Illinois because they see it as a lost cause. Your thoughts?

A: Illinois is not a lost cause! Even when (Republican gubernatorial candidate) Bill Brady ran he won 99 of 102 counties. And that wasn’t the most engaging campaign in the history of Illinois. So this state is really a Republican leaning state except Chicago – but that can change too.

Many African Americans are discouraged and disgruntled. Over the past seven years I’ve often gone on 60 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

barbershop tours on the south side of Chicago talking with the African American community, talking with small business owners – spending my Saturdays there – having fun with the people in those communities.

They’re completely frustrated and they’re saying, “what has the Democratic machine done for us? Nothing. But the Republicans never give us any options.”

So people in the African American community, people in the Latino community, people all over Chicago are ready to start voting for some options other than the Mike Madigan machine – Republicans just aren’t giving them the chance by fielding good candidates.

Now is the time. With Bruce Rauner’s funding, with Rauner’s passion, and with Rauner’s reach – we can do it. This is the time. If people get engaged. And vote.

Q: Why have you chosen to endorse Dan McConchie to succeed you?

A: It’s really easy. Number one: Dan McConchie is the only conservative in this race, period.

He’s going against two village mayors that have helped put our state in the bankruptcy position that it’s in now. So why would we vote for them?

Number two: Casey Urlacher has a famous name and he’s a one hundred percent Mike Madigan plant without a doubt. Madigan is an astute politician. He didn’t get to this point by accident. He’s manipulated a legislature longer than anyone else in the history of the United States. He’s the longest serving speaker in United States history for a reason – because he’s a shrewd political strategist.

He knows he can’t win this district as a Democrat so he has Urlacher running in the Republican primary on his behalf. Urlacher has never pulled a Republican ballot in his life.

He’s a Democrat! Let’s not be stupid. Let’s not let Mike Madigan manipulate us. I know Madigan is clever but wake up people!

Dan McConchie, on the other hand, has worked on conservative causes for the past twenty years.

Marty McLaughlin has voted for as many Democrats as he has Republicans – he says he’s more of an Independent – so he’s not a loyal conservative either.

Q: There is talk in the press about a proposed retirement tax - your thoughts?

People might have been discouraged or frustrated in the past, but now is the time to rise up because now we actually have a leader in the governor’s office.

A: I’m not for any new taxes. There is not a lot for me to say. I have voted against every single tax and fee increase since I’ve been in office. I’m talking even a 50 cents tax on hunting licenses.

Every trucking license fee. We don’t have a revenue problem in Springfield, we have a spending problem in Springfield. We keep masking that problem by coming up with different taxes.

Another tax is not the solution.

We need to start living within our means.

Q: Why did you choose to not run for re-election?

A: I term limited myself from day one. So, anyone who has been listening to me this wouldn’t be a surprise because I’ve been saying it all along.

Q: Why does Speaker Mike Madigan have so much power?

A: The parties elect their leaders in the House and in the Senate. The Democrats choose Madigan, who has been in the state house for over 40 years, and Speaker for over 30 years. The Democrats choose John Cullerton in the senate.

Those two men decide what legislation goes to the floor for a vote. If they don’t want it to – it’s dead – and there’s nothing we can do about it.

Madigan has another role – a conflicting role as chairman of the Illinois Democratic Party.

In other states they don’t allow you to be a speaker and a party chairman. But since he controls which bills come to the floor for a vote, Madigan won’t allow one that makes holding those two positions illegal.

As chairman of the party he controls millions of dollars in campaign contributions from special interest groups and the unions.

If you don’t vote the way he wants to, Madigan can

withhold money from your campaign – so he controls the pocketbook. His floor manager for over a decade was John Cullerton. Cullerton was Madigan’s right hand man, he’s the godfather of Cullerton’s son.

As chairman of the party, Madigan put millions of dollars and his name behind John Cullterton to become President of the Senate – and of course he won – and even though that’s the upper chamber, and Madigan only controls the house, in reality he controls both chambers because he controls John Cullerton.

Then of course the number one police officer in the state, the Attorney General, who watches over all of this to make sure everything is on the up and up and that there’s no corruption taking place – that job is held by Madigan’s daughter, Lisa Madigan.

So Mike Madigan controls the House, the Senate, and the Attorney General’s office. He controls the legislative process and all the legislation in the process.

As a result of Madigan’s leadership over all these years, we have $111 billion in unfunded pension liabilities. We have about $7 billion dollars in unpaid bills – it floats between $6 and $8 billion. We pay $10 million a day in interest on the money we owe.

People always have questions about why it is that Madigan is so powerful and can control the legislative process the way he does. To explain that, for seven years I’ve been giving a presentation titled “Springfield 101.” It takes an hour. It incorporates current events – things that Madigan is doing – so it’s always changing. If groups would like to hear the presentation they can contact me through my website, www.SenatorDuffy.com.

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 61

Illinois 26th Senate | Dan McConchie conservative people who are in office being willing to get out there and provide support.

I’ve also had support from Congressman Randy Hultgren from the 14th district – he’s a strong supporter of mine.

It’s not often the case that some elected officials will get involved in a primary. When they do, and are getting behind a candidate, that’s really helpful because in a primary you have to differentiate yourself and say why you’re the best person to run in this circumstance.

You need that support and encouragement from other like-minded conservatives.

The big story this campaign is the state’s budget battle. Is the governor doing the right thing?

The race to replace Dan Duffy

D

an McConchie is a candidate for state senate in Illinois’ 26th Senate District. According to his posted bio, he is a veteran of the Army National Guard, and vice president of government affairs for Americans United for Life, a national legal advocacy group. He lives in Hawthorn Woods with his wife and two children. Recently, ATFC spoke with McConchie about his candidacy.

Why did you decide to run for the Illinois State Senate seat?

I’ve never run for office before – and what finally encouraged me to do so was a number of things.

One, the support of the conservative Republican incumbent state senator, Dan Duffy, who I have respected for many years.

When he called and said, “I’m not going to run again. I’m going to honor my pledge of term limits – but I want this seat to remain in good hands and I think you’re the person for that.” That said a lot to me because of how much respect I had for Dan. That’s important – having the support of 62 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

I’m optimistic but it’s going to take a little while.

I’m optimistic because Bruce Rauner is the first one in many years to get in there and say to Mike Madigan, look, I’m the governor and I’m going to do whatever it takes to get our state back on the right track again.

And that takes a lot of guts, certainly. Governor Rauner didn’t need this job, he’s not taking a salary – and for him to be out there and willing to fight the way he is demonstrates that there are still people that have a great deal of hope.

The reason I say it’s going to take a while is that we see that we’re at almost five months past when we were supposed to have a budget, and Mike Madigan won’t even sit down and talk with the governor. And Madigan has veto-proof majorities in both chambers.

So we have to keep the seats we have in conservative hands like Dan Duffy, people who are going to fight, and not care if their parking space is moved to the back end of the parking lot. Or if they’re given the worst office in the building. That shouldn’t matter to people, right? You don’t go to Springfield to get along – you go down there to do good things and save our state.

Every day that I go out and I meet people – this is no exaggeration – I meet somebody that says “I’ve already decided to move.”

This morning I was at the McHenry train station and a lady said that in two years her husband is retiring and then they’re gone. They’re moving away. They just can’t take it any more. Every day you meet people who have given up on the state and are planning to move.

Our state is so broken – we’re at a point where either people get in there and fight – or they leave.

Our governor has provided a great template for saying look, I’m willing to stand up for what’s right, and I’m willing to put my money and my time and my effort where my mouth is – and I’m not going to fold regardless of how long it takes.

I genuinely think Mike Madigan has met his match.

Mike Madigan has been in office longer than I’ve been alive. I’m 42, and he’s still been in office longer than that.

So I think this is a great opportunity. You look at who people are supporting for president – whether it’s Donald Trump or Ben Carson – they’re wanting something different than what we’ve had for years and years – whether it’s at the federal or state level.

So I’m very optimistic. Governor Rauner had never run for office before. He saw how broken the state is and he said I’m going to step up and fight because I still believe in Illinois and the people of Illinois.

What I say is that a lot of people want to create two categories and talk about “social issues” – and then they want to talk about “fiscal issues.” I don’t create a differentiation between them. Our fiscal issues are moral issues.

When we borrow money that we don’t plan to pay back but instead plan to hand debt to our kids that’s generational theft.

Case in point – a friend of mine owns a physical therapy business – if they do physical therapy for a state employee it will take her a year and a half to get paid. That is an abuse of a business owner and their employees.

If her company is not getting paid for the services she’s providing – she still has to pay her employees. So she has to go and get a line of credit from the bank. So say Blue Cross is delayed a month in their payment so they have a line of credit at the bank – that kind of thing happens normally in business. But when you have the state taking 18 months to pay their bills the result is abuse of business owners – it’s damaging to their employees because they’re having to pay interest on that line of credit or dip into savings – they can’t afford to give any raises or bonuses. So everybody suffers in this situation.

I look at it and say that I’m a strong social conservative and at the same time I’m a strong

fiscal conservative – but I’m there because – we have to live within our means and hand our kids a better future.

If we don’t do that then we have stolen from them.

And one of the Ten Commandments is don’t steal.

If elections have consequences, what can voters expect that’s different by electing you?

For years the people of Illinois have not had sufficient brand differentiation between the parties.

There has not been those bright bold colors that Reagan talked about that necessarily draw the distinctive difference between the path to socialism that the Democrats want to take us to – and that path towards freedom.

For a lot of people, I think they look at some elected officials and say I don’t see the difference here, so why bother voting?

So this is the thing I always appreciated about having Dan Duffy as my state senator. I could always trust him – and I didn’t have to lobby him. He was always going to vote the right way. I knew that from when I met him after he first took office – in the first week or so of being down in Springfield – he started asking questions such as – “why do we run things like this?” “Why don’t we look after the people’s pocket book and the people’s priorities?” He always stood up for the people and what he felt was right.

And he would tell you if he disagreed with you.

Whether it would be on government consolidation – Dan would let local government officials know he doesn’t like townships.

He was very clear with everyone regarding exactly where he stands. What we have to do as Republicans in is provide that brand differentiation. We have to grow the team – we have to put more people on that team who are able to draw that clear message so that when people tune into the news or read the paper – when the quotes come back from the different parties there’s a stark difference between them.

We are at a crossroads. We are at a time for choosing. If we don’t get it right this time – you can’t build a wall around the state to keep everybody in.

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 63

Illinois 26th Senate | Martin McLaughlin

An Interview with Martin McLaughlin, candidate for the 26th senate district

I

n his announcement statement, small businessman and Barrington Hills president Martin McLaughlin is the owner and manager of an investment advisory firm, and has been named a named fiduciary on police, fire, and municipal pension plans. He is married and the father of five daughters. His campaign website is www.fixourstate.com.

A Time for Choosing recently spoke with Martin “Marty” McLaughlin.

Q: Why did you decide to run for the State Senate seat being vacated by Dan Duffy?

A: We need people in Springfield who have successful backgrounds, and my background is in pension benefit management. I think pensions are the biggest problems the state has, so my professional expertise and my short time in government being successful implementing structural changes to government, I think both of those separate me from the other candidates.

What’s really missing in state government is accountability to the taxpayer. The taxpayer in essence is the shareholder of the state – and taxpayers — whether it’s the business taxpayer or the property tax payer or the service tax payer. We need to have accountability to those that are providing the resources for the state to use.

I’m not interested in the state senate position because of what the position is – I’m interested because I think that people from outside politics are tired of the mismanagement. And frankly, have had enough of the inefficient spending that the state has engaged in here for the past 30 years. That’s why I ran 64 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

for local office – I was upset with the inefficiency at the local level of government and I think the state needs to be more accountable to the taxpayers as well.

Q: The cliche is that elections have consequences— but a record number of Republicans now hold office around the country and many aren’t seeing much of a change in policy. How will your election bring change?

A: Governor Rauner’s election has given us an opportunity to try something different – a business approach. Now he needs people to help him. Ideas are more important right now than party.

Take “Republican” and “Democrat” off of the table for a second. Reducing spending, making government more efficient, and other ideas – those are not Republican or Democrat, but rather come from the business community.

This is not a career for me – I have no interest in a political career. I will continue to operate and manage my business. But I think that people like myself who have been on the sidelines need to get engaged. We need a fresh perspective. The old ways of doing things have obviously not been successful.

Illinois now is, unfortunately, the poster child for financial mismanagement around the country.

And that is evident based on the businesses and the residents who have been leaving the state in droves over the past several years.

And those who are leaving have the means to do so.

Retirees, for example, who can afford to, move over the state line.

I would like people to be able to stay and raise their families here, grow their businesses here, and retire here. Those are three issues that need to be addressed and discussed. And they all focus on the financial impact the tax burden has on the residents of the state.

Property taxes are going up and someone needs to explain to me why, other than (and this is my opinion), it’s because it’s the last chance to get out of the property tax payers what they can before the state, hopefully, puts in some kind of freeze on property taxes.

I don’t think you should have people in office for 20 or 30 years, that’s ridiculous.

It should be something you do for a time, as a service to the surrounding area, and then you should move on. You don’t need to be in office 20 years to be effective. I don’t think we have 20 years.

Some people in the Republican Party have talked about the idea that it’s going to take a long time to turn the ship. I’d like to believe we have a long period of time but frankly I don’t think we do. We need bold ideas and we need to support those with bold ideas – whether its the governor or those running for other offices.

It’s what I’ve been saying for twenty years at my kitchen table with my kids—and with my friends. I’ve spoken to a lot of people with the state Republican Party, and the idea that you have to work your way up is misguided. I think there’s a lot of us who have been out running our businesses doing our civic duty.

I would like to see people from the outside who bring business experience to bear in elective office.

I think that’s what the governor is doing, and that’s what I was able to do after getting elected in 2013 Barrington Hills village president. Reforms have been successful at the local level, so I think I can also be helpful at the state level.

In my business I’ve been managing both public and private pension plans. In the 1990s I watched the promises being made and I shook my head.

You’d leave the room and a bunch of us professionals would observe that these promises are forever – you don’t get to wind them back. When the markets crashed in 2000/2001 everyone looked around and said we can’t make 8.25 percent. Many of the public safety plans are trying to wind that promise back. But in my opinion it’s too late – they’ve been kicking the can down the road now for 25 years.

In my small town it used to take 1200 votes to get elected– there are approximately 1,000 homes, 4,000 people. It takes about 650 votes now.

The homes haven’t left – but the people have bought condos in other places and they’ve moved their residency into other states for reasons that make a lot of sense from an investment perspective.

And I think that’s sad.

The major corporations are also sneaking out of the state and the property tax payers are going to be left with the bill.

NOT that people are TAXED TOO LITTLE,

The problem is

the problem is that

GOVERNMENT SPENDS TOO MUCH. —Ronald Reagan

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 65

Illinois 52nd House | David McSweeney

David McSweeney

We Need a Budget Now

T

he unprecedented budget impasse in Illinois is making headlines nationally, such as this one last year from Bloomberg: “Illinois Faces Millions in Extra Debt Costs From Budget Fiasco.”

For many years, Republicans and conservatives around Illinois have been calling for numerous state government reforms – fiscal and otherwise.

Republican Governor Bruce Rauner has decided to force the matter through a budget confrontation that continues on into 2016.

Not all Republicans are happy with Rauner’s strategy, however, and State Representative David McSweeny is probably the most vocal critic of the failure of budget negotiations.

“Ninety-one percent of the budget is on auto pilot,” McSweeny pointed out in a recent interview, the bills that are being paid are “either due to court orders or consent decrees or continuing appropriations.”

“One of the things that’s happening now,” McSweeny said, “is that the programs that are not being funded are for the truly vulnerable citizens, the homeless, developmentally disabled children, the whole thing is backwards. That nine percent that’s not being funded – we’re destroying our social services infrastructure.”

There are no caps without a budget

Right now the budget is on the path to a $6 million dollar budget deficit.

Everything from legislators’ pay to fully funding the pension obligations – right now there are no caps in place on Medicaid and other programs. The problem is is that every day that goes by without a budget the deficit increases.

66 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

There is no way to shut down the government and save money since we actually then operate under a system where there are no caps. That’s why we need a budget now without a tax increase.

Some Democrats are talking about a massive income tax increase or a retirement tax increase.

That’s the wrong answer.

Instead we need to cut spending. We need real pension reform. And we need to do it now – there is nothing good that is going to happen by waiting since the deficit will continue to increase.

What we will see are more downgrades to our credit ratings. Which means that it will cost a lot more money to borrow in the future.

A tax increase is not the answer. But neither is waiting – waiting only makes the problem worse.

I’m supportive of what Rauner is holding out for – such as redistricting and workers comp reform. But we need a budget now. Otherwise, the deficit is going to get much higher and we’re going to have more downgrades and it’s going to be very difficult to recover from that.

We should be adopting a budget without a tax increase and we should be voting on these items. That’s the point – nothing good is going to happen by waiting and a tax increase is a disaster.

We should be adopting a budget without a tax increase and we should be voting on these items. We should be adopting a zer0-based budget - we should start the budget at zero and build up from there.

For more information about David McSweeney, visit his website at www.DavidMcSweeney.com.

Issue | Right to Life

Who’s the Extremist?

By Cal Skinner

R

evolted by both extremes, most people probably wish the abortion issue would go away. Democrats sent out emails to save Planned Parenthood both after the baby parts revelation and after the shooting. Republicans held Congressional hearings on the undercover videos.

Democrats use abortion to attack Republicans as being extremists.

Meanwhile Republican consultants regularly advise candidates to identify the known Pro-Life voters and ignore the issue. And Republicans using that strategy lose. Thus, the Democrats’ “extremist” label sticks.

Pro-Choice Personal PAC attacked 2010 Republican gubernatorial candidate Bill Brady in early August prior to the election. I advised him to reply, but he pointed out that his poll numbers had gone up since the ad appeared. Most likely some Pro-Life voters discovered he was against abortion from the TV ads.

And yet, for the entire campaign, Brady remained silent on the issue.

He lost to Pat Quinn by 31,814 votes.

Pat Quinn was supported by Personal PAC. Personal PAC does not endorse a candidate if he or

she favors any restrictions on abortion.

Consider the campaign ads against Joe Walsh when he faced off against Tammy Duckworth in his unsuccessful campaign for reelection: “Joe Walsh, too extreme, without exception.”

The ad pointed out the Walsh wanted to defund Planned Parenthood.

Could he have won by counterattacking?

In an email to the Chicago Tribune, Duckworth said she did “not support any restrictions on a woman’s right to choose or her access to safe, affordable reproductive health services.”

So, both Republican candidates were branded “extremists,” did nothing to defend themselves and lost. They were like punching bags, swinging in the wind as a boxer pounded the life out of the candidates.

There is a way to reply to someone who believes in no restrictions whatsoever on abortion: brand her or him extremist before she or he turns you into a piñata.

In his knock-down, drag-out

fall campaign against a liberal opponent, David McSweeney replied when attacked by Personal PAC mailings. He had a mail piece that talked about his opponent’s radical views on abortion.

McSweeney’s opponent is said to

• Support taxpayer-paid abortions.

• Oppose parental notification laws (minors getting abortions without their parents’ knowledge).

• Oppose mandatory waiting periods before an abortion.

• Support abortion on demand.

• Support partial birth abortions.

How much more powerful could such a pitch be if it were on television with an ultrasound of a baby with a beating hear and an announcer saying: “Not all of us are going to agree when this becomes a baby, but all of us are going to agree there is a baby before the baby is born.”

“Tammy Duckworth believes that mothers should be able to abort their babies up until the day they are born.”

“Now, that’s extreme.”

It would take a bold Pro-Life candidate to follow this advice and, unfortunately, there have been none sighted in Illinois…yet.

Republican consultants regularly advise candidates to ignore the pro-life issue; Republicans using that strategy lose.

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 67

Issue | Education Reform

Common Core:

Where a Wrong Answer can be Right and the Right Answer can be Wrong

By Lennie Jarratt

A

nother Common Core-aligned math problem is going viral. A 3rd grade math problem was marked incorrect despite the student finding the correct answer. The question asked the student to find the result of 5 multiplied by 3 using the “repeated addition strategy.” The student wrote “5+5+5” and correctly found the answer to be 15. Apparently, this strategy didn’t fit with the Common Core-established method for teaching multiplication, so the teacher punished the student for getting the right answer.

The second question 4 multiplied times 6 also had the right answer, but was marked incorrect with the exact same reasoning.

NBC Chicago reported, “The new math methods are in response to the Common Core States Standards 68 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

Initiative launched in 2009. It focuses on more critical thinking and less on memorization.”

This reporting is inaccurate. First, these math methods have been around for over two decades under names such as New Math, Everyday Math, and Chicago Math. Second, Common Core was created before 2009, as its own supporters claim. Third, the critical thinking talking point is an excuse to prevent accountability of teaching methods and results.

This talking point also defies logic because, as this math problem shows, many Common Core teachers only want one method taught for calculating the correct answer, regardless of the critical thinking utilized by the student. When a student uses his or her own strategy to come to the right answer,

Common Core: where a student’s wrong answer can be “right” and a right answer can be “wrong.” isn’t that an example of the kind of “critical thinking” Common Core is supposed to be promoting?

In contrast to how this math problem was correct yet marked incorrect, many of you will remember Grayslake District 46 Schools Curriculum Director Amanda August stating to parents, “Under the new Common Core, even if [students] said, ‘3×4 was 11,’ if they were able to explain their reasoning and explain how they came up with their answer, really in words and oral explanations, and they showed it in a picture but they just got the final answer wrong, we’re more focused on the how and the why.”

One other question no one seems to be asking about this problem is the following: Why are teachers under Common Core only doing math problems such as “5×3” in a 3rd grade class? Multiplication should have already been started, at a minimum, in 2nd grade, with the concept being introduced at the end of the 1st grade.

One thing everyone needs to know about Common Core-aligned math: It’s a system where a student’s wrong answer can be “right” and a right answer can be “wrong.”

Lennie Jarratt is the project manager for school reform at The Heartland Institute. This is published with the permission of the “Somewhat Reasonable” blog found at blog.heartland.org.

Lennie Jarrett is a school reform expert at the Heartland Institute.

The trouble with our Liberal friends is

NOT THAT THEY’RE IGNORANT;

it’s just that

THEY KNOW SO MUCH THAT ISN’T SO. —Ronald Reagan

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 69

Resource| Online Education

Learn for Free

Khan Academy & Hillsdale College Offer High Quality Resources Free of Charge

I

n many ways the Internet has been the answer to the decline of the K-12 and university public school systems. Today there are many free resources on the Web that can supplement and/or make up for the deficiencies of elementary schools, high schools, and colleges.

One service that is getting a lot of attention lately, aimed at all age brackets, is the Khan Academy.

The welcoming page of its website says this:

You Only Have to Know One Thing: You Can Learn Anything. For free. For everyone. Forever.

Here’s the synopsis of one summary of how it began: In late 2004, Salman Khan began tutoring his cousin who needed help with math using Yahoo!’s Doodle notepad. When other relatives and friends sought similar help, he decided that it would be more practical to distribute the tutorials on YouTube. The videos’ popularity and the testimonials of appreciative students prompted Khan to quit his job in finance as a hedge fund analyst in 2009, and focus on the tutorials full-time.

Today it is organized as a non-profit, and boasts of big name donors like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Google, and employs 80 people: “We are developers, teachers, designers, strategists, scientists, and content specialists who passionately believe in inspiring the world to learn. A few great people can make a big difference.”

Here is how the Academy describes its work: “Khan Academy offers practice exercises, instructional videos, and a personalized learning dashboard that empower learners to study at their own pace in and outside of the classroom. We tackle math, science, computer programming, history, art history, economics, and more. Our math missions guide learners from kindergarten to calculus using state-of-the-art, adaptive technology that identifies strengths and learning gaps.”

To learn more, visit www.KhanAcademy.org.

70 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

Here are just a few of the courses offered at Hillsdale College:

• Introduction to the Constitution • The Presidency and the Constitution • The Federalist Papers • Constitution 101: The Meaning & History of the Constitution • Constitution 201: The Progressive Rejection of the Founding and the Rise of Bureaucratic Despotism History, literature, statesmanship and economics are also covered in courses such as these:

• History 101: Western Heritage, From the Book of Genesis to John Locke Hillsdale College’s Free Online Courses:

One of the things many people learn first about Hillsdale College is that it is proud of its “independence”: “Hillsdale College does not accept federal taxpayer subsidies for any of its operations.”

Located in Hillsdale, Michigan, the college was founded in 1844 and bills itself as “an independent, coeducational, residential, liberal arts college with a student body of about 1,400. Its four-year curriculum leads to the bachelor of arts or bachelor of science degree, and it is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission.”

Before mentioning the free online courses offered

by Hillsdale, their “Constitutional Reader” is worth highlighting. This valuable resource, also free of charge, features 113 essential primary source documents, and is divided into eleven sections, with introductions written by Hillsdale faculty, including readings on the American founding, Civil War, Progressivism, and the rise of the administrative state. To learn more, visit www.ConstitutionReader.com.

• History 102: American Heritage, From Colonial Settlement to the Reagan Revolution • Great Books 101: Ancient to Medieval • Great Books 102: Renaissance to Modern • Winston Churchill and Statesmanship • Economics 101: The Principles of Free Market Economics

For those who felt they were never sufficiently taught about the history, documents, and principles of the founding era, or for those who would like to brush up or improve upon what they know, Hillsdale’s free online courses are a goldmine of information.

To learn more and sign up for the free courses, visit online.hillsdale.edu/dashboard/courses.

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 71

Guest Opinion | Department of Education

The Problem with Body-Rejecting Students in Government Schools

By Laurie Higgins

I

n 2014, a body-rejecting male student in District 211, the largest high school district in Illinois, filed a complaint with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to force the district to treat him in all contexts as if he were objectively female. The OCR, which is an intrusive, dictatorial, de facto bastion of “LGBTQ” activism, then ordered the district to allow this boy full, unrestricted access to the girls’ locker room “for changing during physical education classes and after-school activities.” The OCR threatened that non-compliance with this order would result in the loss of federal funds for the district. The district promptly and rightfully refused to comply.

Superintendent Daniel Cates, school officials and school board members agreed to a compromise solution. It required the gender-dysphoric student to change in a private, curtained area within the locker room. Both the OCR and ACLU, who represents the boy, find this “inadequate and discriminatory.”

Prior to the agreement, the school had already made inappropriate concessions to the notions of “progressive” ideologues about the meaning of physical embodiment. On school forms, gender-dysphoric 72 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

students may identify themselves as the sex they wish they were. They may play on opposite-sex sports teams.

What is even more outrageous, they may use oppositesex restrooms since “there are private stalls available.”

This boy—and he is and always will be male—was demanding to be allowed unrestricted freedom to change clothes and shower with girls if he so chose. The body-rejecting boy, his parents, the OCR, the ACLU and “trans-activists” seek the eradication of every cultural signifier that affirms that objective biological sex is immutable and profoundly meaningful, and they will use the implacable force of the federal government to achieve that end.

John Knight of the ACLU Illinois’ LGBT program claimed that in refusing to allow a boy unfettered access to the girls’ locker room, District 211 was “knowingly breaking the law.” What is actually in question is the lawfulness of the OCR’s order.

In 2014, the OCR unilaterally reinterpreted Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972—federal civil rights legislation that addressed sexual discrimination, not gender dysphoria—and then commanded that all school districts comply with their reinterpretation.

Here is an excerpt from their proclamation:

“The Department’s Title IX regulations permit schools to provide sex-segregated restrooms, locker rooms, shower facilities, housing, athletic teams, and singlesex classes under certain circumstances. When a school elects to separate or treat students differently on the basis of sex in those situations, a school generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity.”

The OCR imposed their radical reinterpretation on schools without the actual law ever changing. A court case (G. G. v. Gloucester County Public Schools) is currently pending in which the Department of Justice is attempting to change the law in accordance with the OCR’s desires, but as of now, there exists no federal or state law that requires Illinois schools to allow students of one sex to use restrooms or locker rooms designated for opposite-sex students.

Title IX actually states this:

[Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972… is designed to eliminate (with certain exceptions) discrimination on the basis of sex in any education program….A recipient [of federal funds] may provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, but such facilities provided for students of one sex shall be comparable to such facilities provided for students of the other sex.

Many community members who do not like either the accommodation sought by this student or the existing practices regarding sports participation and restroom use may dismiss them as unimportant since there are so few gender-dysphoric students. But if it’s unimportant, why does the Left care so much about them? They care about them because such policies and practices tacitly teach Leftist assumptions to students as incontrovertible truths.

Here are some of the ideas that “transgender” restroom/locker room practices and policies teach all students:

• They teach that the subjective feelings of teens who wish they had been born the opposite sex trump objective biological and anatomical reality.

• They teach students that cross-dressing (as well as hormone-doping and elective amputations of healthy body parts) is morally acceptable and good.

• They teach that body-rejecting students’ desire to be the opposite sex confers to them a right to

use restrooms and locker rooms designated for the opposite sex when in reality boys have no right to use girls’ restrooms, and girls have no right to use boys’ restrooms.

• Policies that allow students to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms ignore the proper, healthy, and normal feelings of students who do not feel comfortable sharing locker rooms and restrooms with those of the opposite sex. Boys, who should leave a bathroom if a girl enters, and girls, who should leave a bathroom if a boy enters, are taught that those natural and good feelings are wrong. They are taught that their natural and good feelings of modesty are exclusionary, lacking in compassion, ignorant, and bigoted.

• Conversely, such policies falsely teach students that in order to be kind, compassionate, and inclusive of those who experience gender dysphoria, they have to affirm those peers’ feelings and ideas.

In reality, neither compassion, nor wisdom, nor inclusivity requires affirmation and accommodation of every feeling, belief, or behavioral choice of every student in a school. And they certainly don’t require students to affirm confusion as soundness or lies as truth. Real love as well as commitments to morality, objective reality, and public order put limits on what individuals and schools should affirm and accommodate. And real love depends first on knowing what is true.

Rumors are circulating parents are enabling their children to ask school districts all over Illinois for permission to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms. School administrations are accommodating these requests in diverse ways and doing so without community input, parental notification or establishing policy. School administrators are requiring that staff and faculty refer to genderdysphoric students by opposite-sex pronouns, which constitutes either a government mandate to lie or a revolutionary revision of English grammar.

Essential questions for school boards:

• If gender-dysphoric students should not be compelled to use restrooms and locker rooms with those whose “gender identity” they don’t share, why should other students be compelled to use facilities with those whose sex they don’t share?

• If restroom stalls and privacy changing areas provide sufficient privacy to force students to use March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 73

Guest Opinion | Department of Education

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size.

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS, ONCE LAUNCHED, NEVER DISAPPEAR. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!

—Ronald Reagan

facilities with those whose sex they don’t share, then why aren’t restroom stalls and privacy changing areas sufficient to force a gender-dysphoric student to use facilities with those whose “gender identity” they don’t share?

• Since pronouns denote and correspond to objective biological sex—not feelings about one’s sex—what if a staff member, teacher, or administrator views using opposite-sex pronouns for gender-dysphoric students as lying, and for moral and/or religious reasons object to lying or deception.

Will objections to lying be accommodated?

• Many “trans-activists” argue that “gender identity” is not fixed. What will schools do when faced with a student whose gender identity is “bi-gender” or “genderfluid” and he/she demands to use whichever facilities correspond to his/her gender on any particular day or year?

Proponents of tolerance and diversity demand nothing less than total ideological surrender and compulsory compliance with policies and practices that reflect their doctrine. Taxpayers in all Illinois communities should work preemptively to establish policy that mandates that restrooms and locker rooms correspond to objective biological sex.

Sympathy for the confusion and disordered desires of gender-dysphoric students should not lead communities to affirm destructive policies that embody fiction.

The Left seeks to efface another essential boundary.

In the twinkling of a jaundiced eye, all boys will be able to use girls’ restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa. The goal of “trans-activists” is to eradicate the “binary.” The logical and inevitable end of these restroom and locker rooms policies, which are embedded with fallacious assumptions about the nature of physical embodiment, is to eradicate all distinctions in language, law and social institutions between male and female.

Chew on that for a moment, then gather those dustcollecting spines from the attic, and do something courageous with the doggedness of the Left.

Contributed by Laurie Higgins, who writes on education issues for the Illinois Family Institute www.IllinoisFamily.org.

74 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

Resource | On the Web

I ILLINOIS REVIEW

Crossroads of the Conservative Community

llinois is one of the most diverse and complicated states in the union. As the center of the Midwest, the Prairie State is home to one of the nation’s largest cities, coupled with expansive suburban and rural areas – all teeming with talent and rich in natural resources. It is no surprise then that the politics of Illinois reflects and affects the rest of the United States.

Illinois is also home to one of the oldest state political news websites in the nation: IllinoisReview.com.

Dominated for years by Democrats in the state legislature, Illinois is fraying at the edges with loss of jobs, revenue and population as Baby Boomer retirees leave the state for better weather and Millennials head for job-plentiful states to the north, south, east and west.

And as if fiscal problems weren’t bad enough, the morale of the state is sinking quickly as social conservatives and churchgoers find their hard-earned tax dollars paying for immoral practices in Planned Parenthood clinics and government schools.

What’s to happen to those left behind? Will they have the energy and the ability to redirect Illinois’ dismal future?

For over a decade, Illinois Review has reported Illinois news from a conservative perspective.

Founded by Dennis LaComb and Fran Eaton in 2005, the popular website features an array of Illinois conservative opinion writers and updates on the latest political and cultural happenings in the Land of Lincoln.

Illinois Review has been a cited source for nearly all the major national and state news outlets, and has often broken stories others refused to report.

In 2016 Illinois Review will focus on the primary and general elections, including endorsements, scorecards and candidate positions from the presidential, state legislative, and local campaigns.

Conservatives should keep IllinoisReview.com on their “must read” list.

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 75

Resource | Illinois Family Action

Faith, Family & Freedom

A

Illinois Family Action

nother organization that seeks the participation and support of concerned Illinoisans is Illinois Family Action (IFA), the non-profit and tax-exempt legislative action arm of the Illinois Family Institute.

IFA was founded in 2010 “to promote the common good and general welfare, primarily by means of education and direct and grassroots lobbying... Illinois Family Action is a 501(c)(4), non-profit political advocacy and lobbying organization and is dedicated to preserving and advancing the interests of family, faith, and freedom in the political arena.”

David E. Smith is the IFA Executive Director

“Illinois Family Action encourages conservative Christian citizens to step up and become more active in our electoral process. Whether it is running for precinct committeeman to help get out the vote for conservative candidates, volunteering as a poll watcher to prevent voter fraud, or serving as an election judge to ensure honest voting, there are a handful of important tasks that must be done if we hope to make a difference in our state.”

To not engage in the political process, Smith explains, is to “abandon the governing of our communities” to those who do not share our values.

In recent months, Illinois Family Action has posted a series of articles about ways more citizens can get involved, with an emphasis on the “why” and the “how.”

Here are the titles of some of their recent articles posted at the IFA website:

• Serving As Poll Watcher: You Too Can Help Prevent Voter Fraud • Serving As An Election Judge: A One Day Commitment To Honest Voting • What Can I Do? You Can Run For Precinct Committeeman • What a Precinct Committeeman Is, and Why Conservatives Need to Run for the Office Precinct Committeemen • The Unavoidable Work of a Political Party For more information, visit www.IllinoisFamilyAction.org or call 708-781-9371.

76 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

Resource | Diersen Digest

Dave Diersen’s free daily email is a very comprehensive Illinois political news link digest

A

re you looking for timely Republican news to arrive in your inbox every day? You might consider subscribing to Dave Diersen’s daily email news digest – it’s not only the state’s most comprehensive newsletter delivered to your email inbox – it’s free!

Wheaton resident Dave Diersen is a retired federal government employee who has been the Illinois editor at GOPUSA.com since 2000. In 2005 he began publishing his “Diersen Digest,” an impressive compilation of news and commentary links. The Digest is posted at three different places on the web, including Diersen’s own page at GOPIllinois.com and is emailed out to everyone who subscribes.

Dave opens each newsletter with the salutation “Fellow Republicans,” and on some news-heavy days Diersen has both a morning and evening edition.

That can add up to a lot of information delivered to your inbox all in one email. Over the past decade plus, he has linked to 200,000 internet postings and information – and he has done it free of charge.

Dave is not shy about adding his own brief commentary into the mix, including his popular “Diersen Headlines,” which lets you know what he really thinks about a news item or event. Often, his headlines are humorous. Here’s a recent one adorning a USA Today editorial about a Supreme Court case on redistricting: “DIERSEN HEADLINE: USA TODAY promotes the Democrat Party’s position on voting, that is, USA TODAY promotes the Democrat Party.”

One of Diersen emails recently included over one

hundred articles that day, with fifty different sources represented.

While Dave offers the service for free, he bears the time burden, as well as the cost of many newspaper subscriptions – seven of which show up on his doorstep every weekday. Why doesn’t he charge for the newsletter?

“He who pays the piper calls the tune,” Dave says.

If he doesn’t charge, he can ignore complaints about his stated bias: he posts “information to help elect candidates who can defend and advance the Republican Party Platform.”

If you don’t like it, don’t subscribe.

Dave has received attention around the state for his efforts, including in a column by Bernard Schoenburg, the political reporter for the Springfield-based newspaper the State-Journal Register. Schoenburg referenced Diersen’s “pointed comments,” but noted that being deterred by them causes one to miss “a treasure of links to the day’s news and opinion.”

Dave Diersen’s passion is getting information to people, and to do so he voluntarily devotes many hours every day to put together his newsletter. Dave also serves as a Republican Precinct Committeeman in Milton Township, in suburban DuPage County.

Dave includes his impressive bio and states his political bias at the end of each email. As Bernard Schoenburg wrote, “Agree or disagree with him, but Diersen provides a bunch of interesting information — every day.”

To subscribe, visit www.GOPIllinois.com and click on the subscribe tab in the left column.

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 77

Issue | Affordable Care Act

2016 Affordable Care Act Open Enrollment

(with higher prices, smaller networks and more canceled plans)

A

s we enter the third year of the ‘full’ implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA/Obamacare), policy holders in Illinois and around the country are once again facing higher prices, smaller PPO networks and even more canceled plans.

On October 20, 2015 Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois sent 173,000 policy holders cancellation letters. The letter, among other things, notifies these policy holders that not only has their health insurance policy been canceled (AGAIN) but that they have also been auto enrolled in new plans that do not include access to the top hospitals in Chicago and the Northern suburbs.

Instead of the “Broad” PPO that these members chose in 2014 which guaranteed them access to the top teaching hospitals in Chicago like Northwestern Memorial Hospital, University of Chicago Hospital, Rush University Medical Center, the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and the hospitals within the NorthShore University Health System, they are now auto enrolled into 78 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

By C. Steven Tucker

plans that no longer include access to any of the aforementioned top hospitals. Worse yet, none of the new networks offered to individuals and families who seek to purchase health insurance with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois in 2016 include access to these hospitals. I’ll present guidance on how to retain access to these hospitals in the following paragraphs.

Keep in mind that this, for many, is the third time their perfectly good policies have been canceled since Barack Obama promised “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.” I miss the old days when I could actually call my clients and tell them that they have a plethora of lower priced options to choose from a variety of carriers in a vibrant and competitive market. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case since 16 health insurance carriers have either closed their doors or been ‘consumed’ by larger carriers since the implementation of the PPACA. Economics 101 taught us that fewer carriers means less competition which always leads to higher prices.

Monopoly isn’t just a board game.

Worse yet, the new 2016 plans are much more expensive. When I say “much more” I really mean it.

You see, the majority of my clientele do not qualify for taxpayer-funded health insurance subsidies.

Since they do not, they are suffering 2016 premium increases of 45% and higher. Since 2010 they have suffered increases of more than 105%. I guess they’ll have to wait until 2017 for Mr. Obama’s promised “$2,500 premium reduction for a family of four.”

So, what are your alternatives if you wish to retain access to the aforementioned teaching hospitals in Chicago?

You have only three choices

1. If your company is incorporated you can purchase a small group health insurance plan with as little as two people. The Broad PPO has not changed for group health insurance plans. Northwestern Memorial hospital, Rush University Medical Center, the University of Chicago hospital and Lurie Children’s Memorial are still participating in the “Broad” PPO that is still included with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois small and large group health plans.

2. If you live in Cook county there is a new health insurance start up called Harken Health, an independently operated subsidiary of United Health Group, America’s largest health insurer.

Harken Health entered the Illinois health insurance marketplace on November 1st and we are just now getting a look at their prices. They are much more affordable than the options available to those living outside of Cook county who wish to retain access to the top teaching hospitals in Chicago.

What is unique about Harken Health is their networks, their prices and the unique ability to visit one of their “Harken Health Centers” and pay nothing. Harken Health’s networks include their ‘Preferred’ network which includes the aforementioned top teaching hospitals and their ‘General’ network which together include approximately 850,000 physicians and care professionals and 6,100 hospitals and other care facilities nationwide. Included in Harken’s Preferred network is Northwestern Memorial hospital, Rush University Medical Center, the University of Chicago hospital and the Ann & Robert Lurie Children’s

Memorial hospital. The hospitals within the NorthShore University Health system are also in their Preferred network.

3. All Illinois residents can also purchase health insurance from Coventry One which is now owned

by Aetna insurance company. Using the Coventry One PPO provider search tool you will also find that Northwestern Memorial hospital, the University of Chicago hospital and the Ann & Robert Lurie Children’s Memorial hospital are all included in the Coventry One PPO network.

4. There is a fourth option but not one that I would recommend to anyone. That is Land of Lincoln Health, one of the 23 troubled health care ‘co-ops’ 22, of which lost money last year. LOL Health ended 2014 with a $17.7 million loss and in the first 6 months of 2015 LOL’s claims outpaced premiums by $26 million.

Lastly, if you want to keep the plan that BCBSIL automatically enrolled you in for 2016, or you want to choose another plan please follow the instructions at www.StayBlueIL.com to accept the new plan or choose a different plan with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois for the year 2016.

Visit HealthInsuranceMentors.com for more expert guidance throughout the 2016 ACA Open Enrollment period.

C. Steven Tucker is the principal broker at HealthInsuranceMentors.com. He has been giving public presentations about the problems associated with Obamacare for years – his personal website is csteventucker.wordpress.com.

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 79

Issue | Climate Change

CLIMATE CHANGE: There is no ‘consensus’ on the human impact on climate, and certainly no consensus on what should be done

I

n December the United Nations COP-21 “climate talks” made international headlines, and most Americans are familiar with the issue that used to be called global warming – but is now “climate change.”

It is a safe bet, however, that few Americans are aware that there is actually a debate underway about the causes: it is not “settled science” as so many on the political left would have people believe.

Because of Climate Change’s trumpeting by the dominant liberalleaning media, many people have heard the claim that 97% of scientists believe in man-made global warming. Unfortunately, the truth about that hyperbole has not reached as big an audience: the study claiming a 97% consensus of scientists is not factually true.

Writing at the Media Research Center’s website, Jeff Dunetz has reported that the study “was a qualitative study which relied on opinion and produced biased results.”

Another unfortunate fact is that few Americans are aware of the work of The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change

80 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

(NIPCC). What is the NIPCC? It is “an international panel of non government scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change.”

“Because we are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, we are able to look at evidence the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ignores. Because we do not work for any governments, we are not biased toward the assumption that greater government activity is necessary.”

The NIPCC has held a number of international conferences and issued several science-based reports.

According to the NIPCC website, some of the scientists contributing to the effort “have asked not to be named in NIPCC reports for fear of losing research grants and being blacklisted by professional journals.”

Here are some facts that more people should know.

Starting in 2009, NIPCC has been publishing a series titled “Climate Change Reconsidered.” Its thousands of pages summarize the science behind the controversy.

“Together, they represent contributions from more than 50 climate scientists and cite more than 4,000 peer-reviewed articles. …

[The] work is credible and respected in the climate science community.

‘Climate Change Reconsidered’ has

The climate is always changing. The science that is clear is that the impact of humans on the climate is tiny compared with natural variability. been cited in about 100 articles in peer-reviewed science journals.

The Chinese Academy of Sciences thought so highly of it that it translated and published a Chinese edition of the first two volumes in the series.”

In a recently published op ed, the Heartland Institute’s Joe Bast answered the oft-stated claim that “Climate change is real, and humans are responsible. This is not debatable if you believe in science.

The science is clear. And that means there is only one question still worth asking: What on Earth are we going to do about it?”

Here was the start of Joe Bast’s response:

“Climate change is real, but the only part of the science that is ‘clear’ is that the impact of humans on the climate is tiny compared with natural variability. If that’s the case, then the only question ‘still worth asking’ is: Why are we wasting billions of dollars and destroying millions of jobs without any hope of stopping or delaying global warming?”

Bast has been studying the work of climate scientists for twenty years, and has helped edit the NIPCC series “Climate Change Reconsidered.”

“There is no ‘consensus’ on the human impact on climate,” Bast wrote, “and certainly no consensus on what should be done.”

“The surveys and articles cited in support of that claim have been debunked many times. They invariably ask the wrong people (often nonscientists or only scientists likely to agree with the alarmist views) or the wrong questions ( for example, if any warming has occurred rather than whether humans are responsible for the warming).

Credible surveys of real climate scientists show extensive disagreement on basic scientific issues.

“The human impact is very small. Many scientists who are expert on the ‘attribution’ issue say doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide (the main man-made greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere from its preindustrial level would likely cause a warming of less than 2 degrees Fahrenheit, half of which should already have occurred. If you think that’s a lot, get up and walk to another room. Chances are, you will experience 2 degrees of warming or cooling.

“Even a warming of twice that much, should it occur, would fall within the bounds of natural variability. Temperatures were warmer during the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago, the Roman Warm Period of 2,000 years ago, and the Holocene Climatic Optimum of 5,000 years ago. Humans and ecological systems thrived during those warmer periods. There’s no reason to believe the results would be any less beneficial in coming centuries.”

More Americans need to become aware of the work of NIPCC, and hear in greater detail, the facts put forward by those challenging the popular narrative regarding man-made global warming.

To learn more, visit www.co2science.org and www.heartland.org/Cop21.

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 81

Resources | Library

Home School

These are examples of books which we think our readers may enjoy.

Please share your own suggestions through our website at www.ChoosingIllinois.com/Resources.

In each issue, we will offer new suggestions, and more choices will be featured online as a suggested book list for Republicans.

Encourage children to discover that the liberal progressive point of view taught in many schools and colleges is not the only one.

Good books can help them to discover new ideas which work, and persuade their friends that government is not the solution to every social need. Make the case for liberty in America.

Please consider sharing these suggestions with your local public or school libraries, or perhaps donate copies to their collections if they don’t have them already.

82 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 83

Resources | Library

2016 Obama's America (DVD) 84 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

America: Imagine the World Without Her (DVD and companion book)

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 85

Resource | Online

Ballotpedia.org A Free, Online Source for Political & Election Information

W

ikipedia, the popular free online encyclopedia, is often used as a quick source for basic facts. Readers do need to be aware that since it has so many volunteer contributors, readers need to recognize that the content, provided by volunteers, is not always unbiased or reliable.

One lesser known online source is Ballotpedia.org which bills itself as “the online encyclopedia of American politics and elections.”

“Our goal is to inform people about politics by providing accurate and objective information about politics at all levels of government. Ballotpedia’s articles are 100 percent written by our professional staff and a small group of guest editors. All content written by our guest editors is reviewed and fact-checked by our staff.”

Ballotpedia.org boasts of “an editorial staff of over 50 writers and researchers,” and provides information on local, state and federal politics. The site is a terrific source for the basics – such as election dates, or state delegate counts. Not everything is hard cold facts, though, as pages like “State influencers” (or “power players”) include names based upon subjective criteria.

86 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

The page focusing on Illinois (www.Ballotpedia. org/Illinois) includes links to individual pages with information about topics such as the Illinois congressional delegation, the courts, state and local government, as well various state policies.

Ballotpedia also has a feature where you can enter your home address to learn who your local elected officials are, as well as see a sample ballot.

270toWin.com

Study Past Election Results and Predict Future Scenarios with Interactive Map

“I

t will take 270 electoral votes to win the 2016 presidential election,” the website 270ToWin.com explains, and with their interactive “red state” v. “blue state” map, you can forecast the future, learn about past elections results, and even embed your predictions into your own website. 270ToWin.com posts recent election news and polling data, and can be followed on Facebook and Twitter. According to their website, the 270ToWin. com interactive map has been widely recognized, including being linked to from the National Archives website.

Are you smarter than a political pundit? Exercise your prognosticator muscles at www.270ToWin.com.

Contributed Content | Voter Guide

2016 VOTER GUIDE EARLY VOTING BEGINS FEBRUARY 29Â ELECTION DAY: MARCH 15

## |

A Time For Choosing

| December 2015

President Ted Cruz

President Marco Rubio

Thank you Voter Guide participants.

We invited all candidates in competitive primary races for President, U.S. Senate, Congress and the Illinois General Assembly to submit content for our Voter Guide. They were invited at the same time. Some did not respond, and we thank those who chose to make their case directly to Illinois voters.

We asked all the candidates the same question; Why should Illinois voters support you? Make your best case to voters.

Their replies and photos were submitted by their campaigns.

We will do a similar Voter Guide in our October issue for the November election.

Our online Voter Guide will be available all year at www.ChoosingIllinois.com

US Senate Mark Kirk

IL Senate District 26 Dan McConchie

US Senate James Marter

IL Senate District 26 Martin McLaughlin

IL House District 95 Christopher M. Hicks

US Congress District 1 Jimmy Lee Tillman II

IL Senate District 58 Paul Schimpf

IL House District 96 Gary T. Pierce

US Congress District 2 John F. Morrow

IL House District 74 Wayne Saline

IL House District 109 John Curtis

IL House District 76 Jacob Bramel

IL House District 110 Reggie Phillips

Contributed Content | Voter Guide

This Voter Guide contains content which was contributed by the candidates, and is separate from our independent editorial research and reporting.

All candidates for competitive primary races were invited to contribute short articles to make the case to voters for support of their candidacy. Some did not respond in time for our deadline before going to press.

2016 REPUBLICAN VOTER GUIDE

Make it Count.

Please refer to our website for additional articles, voter comments, and links for more information about the candidates. www.ChoosingIllinois.com/VoterGuide We have included links there to candidate websites, as well as their related Facebook pages, YouTube videos, or Twitter accounts. For incumbents, there are also links to their official websites for reference.

The online version of this Voter Guide also includes links to the scorecards provided by Heritage Action and Conservative Review for members of Congress. Both rate the members of Congress by their voting records on key conservative issues from their point of view, which is helpful for reference. They profile each member to show their voting history on all these issues, rather than just the most recent votes or summary score.

Our custom online search tool can also empower voters to more easily find articles about specific candidates or issues of concern from a variety of reliable sources.

We will publish another Voter Guide in future issues.

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 89

Contributed Content | Voter Guide

Presidential Candidates Eleven candidates qualified to be on the Illinois primary ballot, but only four remain as active candidates even though they will all be on the ballot.

The four remaining candidates at press time are:

• Donald Trump - DonaldJTrump.com • Ted Cruz - TedCruz.org • Marco Rubio - MarcoRubio.com • John Kasich - JohnKasich.com Vote for their delegates

In each of the 18 Illinois Congressional districts, voters select 3 delegates and 3 alternates to nominate the presidential candidate of their choice at the Republican convention in Cleveland in July 2016.

The vote for President at the top of the ballot is basically an opinion poll with no real impact on the nomination.

90 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

What matters is the vote for the delegates and alternates in your district for the presidential candidate of your choice.

Analysis | Voter Guide

Republican turnout is up 68% in 2016 over 2012.

Donald Trump is getting far more votes than John McCain or Mitt Romney in 2012, but he still does not have the majority of the delegates.

Democratic turnout is down 30% from the record 2008 levels.

Hillary Clinton is getting fewer votes than in her 2008 defeat.

TRUMP 2016

STATE Iowa

DELEGATES WON TRUMP

CRUZ

RUBIO

7

8

7

KASICH

CARSON

1

3

New Hampshire

11

3

2

4

0

South Carolina

50

0

0

0

0

Nevada

14

6

7

1

2

Alabama

36

13

1

0

0

Alaska

11

12

9

0

0

Arkansas

16

14

9

0

0

Georgia

40

18

14

0

0

Massachusetts

22

4

8

0

0

Minnesota

8

13

17

0

0

Oklahoma

12

14

11

0

0

Tennessee

31

14

9

0

0

Texas

38

99

4

0

0

Vermont

6

0

0

0

0

Virginia

17

8

16

5

3

TOTALS

319

226

110

25

8

CRUZ 2016

RUBIO 2016

TOTAL VOTES 2008

TOTAL VOTES 2012

TOTAL VOTES 2016

Iowa

45,429

51,666

43,228

IA

119,188

121,501

186,932

New Hampshire

100,406

33,189

30,032

NH

239,328

248,475

284,120

South Carolina

239,851

164,791

165,883

SC

445,499

603,770

737,924

Nevada

34,531

16,079

17,940

NV

44,315

32,961

75,216

Alabama

371,735

180,608

159,802

AL

552,155

622,514

837,632

Alaska

7,346

7,973

3,318

AK

13,703

13,219

21,930

Arkansas

133,144

123,873

101,235

AR

229,153

152,360

396,523

Georgia

501,707

305,109

315,979

GA

963,541

901,470

1,275,601

Massachusetts

311,313

60,473

112,822

MA

501,997

370,425

614,668

Minnesota

24,018

32,684

41,126

MN

62,828

48,916

112,549

Oklahoma

130,141

157,941

119,562

OK

335,054

286,523

452,731

Tennessee

332,702

211,159

180,989

TN

553,815

554,573

834,939

Texas

757,618

1,239,370

502,223

TX

1,362,322

1,449,477

2,737,248

Vermont

19,968

5,929

11,778

VT

39,843

60,850

58,762

Virginia

355,960

173,193

327,042

VA

489,252

265,570

1,012,807

3,365,869

2,764,037

2,132,959

5,951,993

5,732,604

9,639,582

% Share of 2016 Vote

% Share of 2016 Vote

% Share of 2016 Vote

Decline from 2008

Increase from 2012

34.9%

28.7%

22.1%

-4%

+68%

TOTALS

--

2016 REPUBLICAN VOTER GUIDE

A look at numbers through Super Tuesday

Bold numbers highlighted in yellow indicate states won and/or increases

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 91

Contributed Content | Voter Guide Presidential Candidate | Ted Cruz SUBMITTED BY THE TED CRUZ CAMPAIGN Ted Cruz is the only proven conservative candidate running for president in 2016. He is willing to risk his own personal advancement to stand up for what he believes, and shows it time and time again.

Campaign Website www.TedCruz.org

I first met Ted at a political event in 2009. He told the story of fighting for American and Texas sovereignty as the state’s representative before the Supreme Court, when the Bush administration wanted Texas to return a convicted murderous rapist over to Mexico. Bush said that as President he had the authority to force the return of this vile person, who was also an illegal immigrant. Cruz won that case, upholding the rule of law despite what we now know was incredible political and personal pressure.

In 2012 I was a delegate to the Republican National Convention for Rick Santorum. That summer I had an event to attend in Dallas, at which Ted would be a featured speaker. the event coincided with his run for Senate. I decided to drive rather than fly, and after some consideration decided to spend two weeks in Texas volunteering for the Cruz campaign. On the drive, I notified the world via Twitter: this guy from Illinois was driving to Texas to help elect Ted Cruz.

After two weeks knocking on doors and planting yard signs in the Texas sun, I was amazed that at the event Ted sought me out to thank me for volunteering.

He said my notice had given the campaign a morale boost. That kind of attention to personal detail is a hallmark of Ted’s way of working.

Cruz is pro-life and supports traditional marriage. He is a full supporter of Americans’ personal right to own guns and to carry them with us. He is for a strong military and a foreign policy of engaging our enemies and supporting our friends, such as Israel.

Ted Cruz believes in returning America’s government to constitutional confines.

It’s what drives him. His positions, regardless of political popularity, are all based on his love for the Constitution, for liberty, and for our great nation. Whether it is repealing Obamacare, opposing amnesty for illegal aliens, opposing ethanol mandates in Iowa, or insisting that our efforts to stop terrorism must not invade our privacy, Cruz stands for his principles.

In 2013, when President Obama announced that he would shut down the government to keep Obamacare, Cruz led a national movement to call his bluff.

With the media, Speaker John Boehner, and Senate Republicans attacking him, Cruz stood up and said the House should not fund the program. When others ran from the fight, Cruz stood his ground. the government was shut down, much to President Obama’s delight. Senate Republicans, fearful of a backlash that would never come, eventually caved and funded Obamacare.

Voters can be sure that Cruz will stand his ground and enforce the Constitution.

92 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

Presidential Candidate | Marco Rubio Throughout this campaign, I’ve had the privilege of seeing America in a way that very few people ever get the chance to. I’ve traveled from coast to coast, from big cities to small towns, and I’ve met Americans of every walk of life.

As I’ve done so, one thing has become increasingly clear to me: With this election, America is on the verge of something truly historic. there’s an energy, a frustration with Washington, and a determination to save our country that is as strong and widespread as it’s ever been.

Campaign Website www.MarcoRubio.com

It’s driven by the fact that we have an outdated political class in this country that refuses to seize the promise of the 21st century. And as a result, our people are watching that promise pass them by.

Businesses are dying faster than they are forming; the costs of every day life are soaring while wages remain stagnant; and too many parents feel as if the longer and harder they work, the further the American Dream slips out of reach.

2016 REPUBLICAN VOTER GUIDE

SUBMITTED BY THE MARCO RUBIO CAMPAIGN

In spite of these truths, it is my belief that this must not just be an election about how bad things are; it must also be an election about how good things can be. No nation on earth is better equipped to seize the promise of this century than America.

Yet everywhere I go, I meet people who realize that we’re not going to seize that promise by looking to the same leaders and the same ideas that have led us to where we are today.

Washington sees this sentiment, too; and they try to make sense of it – but they can’t. Because never has the political establishment in both parties and the mainstream media that covers them been more out of touch with the American people than they are today.

This is exactly why, after five years in the Senate, I’ve had enough. I’ve decided to run for president because I realize now that none of the problems I got elected to solve are going to be solved if we keep promoting the same establishment leaders to higher and higher ranks within our government.

The fact is, if we want to set a new precedent in Washington, we need a new president in Washington – one who will fight special interests in both parties, not be co-opted by them, who will take clear and even unpopular positions to confront the greatest threats we face.

continues on following page

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 93

Contributed Content | Voter Guide Presidential Candidate | Marco Rubio (Cont’d) Most of all, we need a president who will put their hand on the Bible and promise to uphold the entire Constitution – including the right to religious liberty, including the right to bear arms, and including the inalienable right to life. It’s been seven years since we’ve had a president willing to stand by that promise. I will.

Seven years of Barack Obama have left us a nation in decline, but it’s not too late to change course. We are not a weak country; we just have a weak president. But the time to act is now.

We cannot afford to elect Hillary Clinton, because America cannot afford another four years like the eight before it. And we cannot settle for just any Republican, because this election is not just a choice between two parties, it is a generational choice about our identity as a nation.

We did not become an exceptional nation by accident. For over two centuries, each generation before us did what they needed to do to make this the greatest nation on earth. Now, the time has come for us to do our part.

If you choose me as our nominee, we will unite conservatives, grow the Republican Party, and defeat Hillary Clinton once and for all. then, together, we will begin the work of returning to the principles that made America great.

We will put the false promise of big government behind us and embrace the power of a free people in a free economy to create a more prosperous nation. In doing so, we will not only save the American Dream, we will expand it to reach more people than ever before.

94 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

2016 REPUBLICAN VOTER GUIDE

U.S. Senate Candidates Mark Steven Kirk Incumbent U.S. Senator James T. Marter Candidate for U.S. Senator

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 95

Contributed Content | Voter Guide

U.S. Senate | Mark Kirk SUBMITTED BY THE MARK KIRK CAMPAIGN As a Senator representing the great state of Illinois, Mark Kirk is committed to keeping the American people safe from the threat of terrorism at home and abroad; protecting veterans, doctors and nurses from the Department of Veterans Affairs’ culture of corruption; and putting the nation on a responsible fiscal path by cutting wasteful government spending, eliminating duplicative and unnecessary federal programs and avoiding tax hikes that stunt economic growth and make it harder for working families to get by.

Official Website www.Kirk.Senate.gov Campaign Website www.KirkForSenate.com

The United States has an essential role to play in promoting and maintaining peace and stability around the world, especially with the continuing threat of a nuclear Iran and the growing threat of ISIS. Senator Kirk has been a vocal critic of the flawed nuclear deal with Iran that will give back more than $100 billion in sanctions relief to the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism.

Senator Kirk will continue holding the administration accountable and working to renew the Iran Sanctions Act, a law critical to punishing Iran if it cheats on the nuclear agreement.

ISIS has stoked chaos throughout the Middle East and has shown it is capable of directing and inspiring terrorist attacks around the world, including in Paris and even on U.S. soil. The American people deserve a clear assessment of the threat of ISIS, the nation’s failure to contain it, and what is being done to destroy ISIS and to prevent terrorist attacks. That includes stopping terrorists from entering the U.S. through the visa waiver program or the refugee program and preventing suspected terrorists from buying guns.

Senator Kirk has worked rigorously to turn around the corruption patterns at Hines VA and offer the best possible care and services to veterans who put their lives on the line for the nation’s safety. Because of Senator Kirk’s dedication to protecting whistleblowers, the bipartisan FY16 funding bill included whistleblower protections for Department of Veterans Affairs doctors and nurses.

Lake Michigan is one of Illinois’ biggest and most important assets. Senator Kirk recently secured $300 million for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, which will combat the threat of invasive species, pollution and toxic contamination. His bill to authorize the program for five years recently passed the Environment and Public Works Committee.

As a veteran of the Navy Reserves, having served 23 years as an intelligence officer, Senator Kirk is regarded by his peers as an expert on national security.

In fact, just recently Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol called Sen. Mark Kirk a leader on national security. Now more than ever, Illinois needs a proven national security hawk like Mark Kirk representing them in the United States Senate.

96 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

U.S. Senate | James Marter

Campaign Website www.Marter4Senate.us

After serious consideration I decided to seek the ILLINOIS Republican nomination for United States Senator. Incumbent Illinois Senator Mark Kirk’s voting record is out of touch with ILLINOIS values, especially due to his recent NO vote against the effort to stop funding Planned Parenthood and his NO vote against Kate’s Law which would have ended Sanctuary City Status. He is a consistent supporter of gun control with an “F” rating by the NRA. He has a history of opposing school choice. He has opposed almost every effort to significantly cut spending or balance the budget. And finally, he is the only sitting Republican senator to have voted for Cap and Trade energy taxes.

I have a passion and a premise that the people of the State of Illinois should have a Senator who is looking out for them and not powerful corporations or lobbyists with their own profit in mind. I know we share many common concerns that are facing our nation today. We need to work together to bring the original purpose of our constitution and limited government back to our great nation, and return to our country’s foundations of LIFE and Liberty. It is the RIGHT time to send a Senator to Washington D.C. whose first interest is the Liberty and Security of the American Citizen Taxpayer!

BACKGROUND Age: 53

Business Owner: Marter Enterprises, LLC (est. 2002). Professional Mgmt. & Software consulting National and International practice; SAP America, Chicago Office. (1997-2002); The Dow Chemical Company (1985-1997) Midland Michigan; Morse Data Corporation (1984) Chicago Illinois

2016 REPUBLICAN VOTER GUIDE

SUBMITTED BY THE JAMES MARTER CAMPAIGN

Education: Purdue University BSIM Industrial Management, Computer Science (84), CPIM Certified in Production & Inventory Management by APICS (95), Limestone Comm. High School (81) Bartonville IL. Faith & Family: Parishioner St. Anne Catholic Church, Oswego. Married to Jill 30 years and we are blessed with our four children. Knights of Columbus #7247 charity & faith based organization (7 yrs.)

Volunteering: Church Education Commission, Midland Dolphins Swim Club (5 yrs.): board member & Vice Pres., Meet Director - Saginaw Valley State University, Boy Scouts of America - Adult Leader (17 yrs.), Club & USA Age Group Swim Coach (8 yrs)., Middle School Basketball Coach Boys/Girls (5 yrs.).

Kendall County Republicans - Precinct Committeeman Oswego 22

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 97

Contributed Content | Voter Guide

U.S. Congress Candidates August (O’Neill) Deuser Candidate for 1st District

Robert Dold Incumbent for 10th District

Randall M. “Randy” Hultgren Incumbent for 14th District

Jimmy Lee Tillman, II Candidate for 1st District

Tonia Khouri Candidate for 11th District

John M. Shimkus Candidate for 15th District

John F Morrow Candidate for 2nd District

Herman B. White Candidate for 11th District

Kyle McCarter Candidate for 15th District

Peter J. Roskam Incumbent for 6th District

Nick Stella Candidate for 11th District

Adam Kinzinger Incumbent for 16th District

Gordon (Jay) Kinzler Candidate for 6th District

Michael Bost Incumbent for 12th District

Patrick Harlan Candidate for 17th District

Peter “Pete” Dicianni Candidate for 8th District

Rodney Davis Incumbent for 13th District

Jack Boccarossa Candidate for 17th District

Joan Mccarthy Lasonde Candidate for 9th District

Ethan Vandersand Candidate for 13th District

Darin Lahood Incumbent for 18th District

98 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

U.S. Congress District 1 | Jimmy Lee Tillman II Jimmy Lee Tillman, II is seeking the GOP nomination for the 1st Congressional District in the upcoming 2016 Illinois primary. An urban political strategist and hip hop political talk show host, he founded the Martin Luther King Republicans organization in 2009.

In the 2014 mid-term election Tillman garnered significant support in Will County and suburban Cook, but fell short of the 60,000 plus votes needed to defeat the incumbent. He attributes the loss to the lack of support from the Chicago GOP.

Campaign Website www.JimmyLee2DC.com

“Voters in Cook County and Illinois are eager for an alternative to the current all Democratic leadership that has delivered very little,” Tillman remarked, “It is important that our community is represented in both political parties and not neglected by either.”

2016 REPUBLICAN VOTER GUIDE

SUBMITTED BY THE JIMMY TILLMAN II CAMPAIGN

At a campaign stop in New Lenox, Tillman was warmly received by the roomful of precinct committeemen, and reminded the attentive crowd that in past elections Will County has always supported him.

“The overwhelming support in the 2014 election has proven to the critics that Will County voters are informed and will vote for a candidate from Chicago’s South side”, Tillman remarked.

Tillman and the New Lenox GOP organization share similar goals of keeping public office as a public trust, protecting working families from tax increases, fighting to improve education,and supporting freedom and opportunity for all.

Tillman says his campaign and victory will bridge communities in Illinois together. “The 1st Congressional District will be represented from the urban and middle-class communities in Cook County to the rural and bedroom communities in Will County.”

Jimmy Lee Tillman, II is an independent Republican committed to making a difference in the 1st Congressional District in Illinois.Tillman is the son of Dr. Jimmy Lee Tillman, I and radio host, civil rights activist, former alderman Dorothy Tillman.

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 99

Contributed Content | Voter Guide

U.S. Congress District 2 | John F Morrow SUBMITTED BY THE JOHN F. MORROW CAMPAIGN Why the Republican voters should support my Campaign First and foremost I’m a devoted Christian, loving Husband and father, patriot of the Constitution and I strongly believe in the Free Enterprise System. My concern for our Countries children and grandchildren, has inspired me to run for the U S Congress 2nd District . I will work diligently to make sure our upcoming generations have the promising future that our forefather’s envisioned and died for...our Freedom and Pursuit of Happiness!

Campaign Website None Listed

Our Country is on the verge of a financial melt down if we as a nation continue to ignore the unstable stock market, looming home equity problems, dwindling velocity of money, silent wealth confiscation, and the 46-trillion dollar wealth transfer. My priority as your Congressman is to address the 46-trillion dollar spending budget, the out-of -date tax system, make recommendations to change our United States Criminal Justice System, and fix the broken social security system. This will allow generation X, and future generations, the option to start investing a percentage of their social security money, before retirement, through financial institutions that they choose. Why should we continue to allow the government to invest all of our retirement money?

I agree with our 3rd President, Thomas Jefferson who said, “We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.” “Prosperity is achieved through productivity not by borrowing money.” This was a clear warning from our forefathers, that we have not taken heed to as a Nation. When I go to Washington, I will uphold our forefathers warnings and stop unnecessary funding in a responsible way. I will collaborate with politicians who understand the issues and are willing to do what’s best for our Country, not our parties.

I embrace the opportunity to serve as your Congressman with much enthusiasm! In order to speak this into existence, I need your full support. I’m not running against the Democrats or Republicans, I’m running against time!

I thank you in advance. God bless you, and God bless America!

100 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

Scorecard: IlLINOIS members of Congress Sources: Heritage Action (heritageaction.com) and Conservative Review (conservativereview.com) as of Feb. 15, 2016 DISTRICT

REPRESENTATIVE

PARTY

HERITAGE SCORE

CR GRADE

PRIMARY CHALLENGER

Senator

Dick Durbin

D

4%

F, 2%

2020

Senator

Mark Kirk

R

12%

F, 19%

James Marter

1

Bobby Rush

D

12%

F, 18%

Jimmie Lee Tillman II; August Deuser

2

Robin Kelly

D

12%

F, 13%

John E Morrow

3

Daniel Lipinski

D

28%

F,15%

None

4

Luis Gutierrez

D

17%

F, 19%

None

5

Mike Quigley

D

5%

F, 12%

None

6

Peter Roskam

R

63%

F, 56%

Gordon (Jay) Kinzler

7

Danny Davis

D

12%

F, 15%

None

8

Tammy Duckworth

D

15%

F, 12%

Pete DiCianni

9

Jan Schakowsky

D

16%

F, 18%

Joan McCarthy Lasonde

10

Bob Dold

R

23%

F, 30%

None

11

Bill Foster

D

8%

F, 6%

Tonia Khouri; Herman B. White; Nick Stella

12

Michael Bost

R

31%

F, 25%

None

13

Rodney Davis

R

34%

F, 31%

Ethan Vandersand

14

Randy Hultgren

R

70%

C, 71%

None

15

John Shimkus

R

47%

F, 39%

Kyle McCarter

16

Adam Kinzinger

R

39%

F, 36%

None

17

Cheri Bustos

D

16%

F, 12%

Patrick Harlan; Jack Boccarossa

18

Darin LaHood

R

56%

F, 50%

None March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 101

Contributed Content | Voter Guide

Illinois Senate Candidates Seth Lewis Candidate for IL 23rd Senate

Dave Syverson Candidate for IL 35th Senate

Michael P. Madigan Candidate for IL 52nd Senate

Jim Oberweis Candidate for IL 25th Senate

Chuck Weaver Candidate for IL 37th Senate

Jason Barickman Candidate for IL 53rd Senate

Dan McConchie Candidate for IL 26th Senate

Sue Rezin Candidate for IL 38th Senate

Dale A. Righter Candidate for IL 55th Senate

Casey Urlacher Candidate for IL 26th Senate

Christine Radogno Candidate for IL 41st Senate

Mike Parsons Candidate for IL 55th Senate

Martin McLaughlin Candidate for IL 26th Senate

Bill Brady Candidate for IL 44th Senate

Paul Schimpf Candidate for IL 58th Senate

Mel Thillens Candidate for IL 28th Senate

Jil Tracy Candidate for IL 47th Senate

Sharee Langenstein Candidate for IL 58th Senate

Benjamin Salzberg Candidate for IL 29th Senate

Michelle Smith Candidate for IL 49th Senate

Dale Fowler Candidate for IL 59th Senate

Michael Amrozowicz Candidate for IL 31st Senate

William “Sam� Mccann Candidate for IL 50th Senate

Pamela Althoff Candidate for IL 32nd Senate

Bryce Benton Candidate for IL 50th Senate

102 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

IL Senate District 26 | Dan McConchie Illinois is at a crossroads. Decades of mismanagement have caught up with us. As we near the edge of a fiscal cliff, it is vital that we send someone to Springfield who is rooted in our shared Republican values and has the courage to fight for reform.

Campaign Website www.DanMcConchie.com

My name is Dan McConchie. I am a life-long conservative who is running for state Senate to cut spending, lower taxes and fight corruption. With the experience of managing an organizational budget and meeting a payroll, I know exactly what Illinois families and small business owners face every day under our dysfunctional state government.

As an accomplished outsider, I owe nothing to the Springfield elite. I can focus entirely on representing the people of the 26th District.

2016 REPUBLICAN VOTER GUIDE

SUBMITTED BY THE DAN McCONCHIE CAMPAIGN

As a husband and father of two teenage daughters, I want a future here in Illinois for my family. Too many people are moving out of state for lower taxes and better opportunities. We need bold leadership now in Springfield to join Governor Rauner in his fight to save our state.

It is a time for choosing. Together, we can reform our state for us and our children’s future. I ask for your vote. Thank you.

IL Senate District 26 | Martin McLaughlin SUBMITTED BY THE MARTIN McLAUGHLIN CAMPAIGN I am running for office because I want the state of Illinois to be a place where I can affordably raise my family, continue to grow my business, and retire.

I have grown frustrated watching Springfield grind to a halt because of an inability to accept needed spending reforms and enact a balanced budget. My professional experience is in the field of pension management. I am uniquely qualified and ready to tackle the biggest problem in our state pension reform.

Campaign Website www.FixOurState.com

We can fix our state, but it will require bold measures. I was told I would never defeat the entrenched powers when I ran for Village President, yet despite being outspent 5-to-1 by the incumbent I won by nearly 20%. I was told I couldn’t use my common sense private sector experience to clean up my bloated local government rife with cronyism, yet I have successfully reduced spending, cut taxes, and put the village on a path towards fiscal responsibility.

I have led by example and I have proven results. My professional and local government experience has prepared me to serve as your state Senator. I am ready to go to Springfield to fight the entrenched powers on behalf of my neighbors in the 26th District.

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 103

Contributed Content | Voter Guide

IL Senate District 58 | Paul Schimpf SUBMITTED BY THE PAUL SCHIMPF CAMPAIGN

Campaign Website www.Schimpf4Illinois.com

I am running for the Illinois state Senate in the 58th District because Springfield needs principled leadership we can trust. I am a pragmatic conservative who will fight for Southern Illinois values: limited government, individual freedom, and religious liberty. I am pro-life, pro-2nd amendment, and pro-family. I spent my adult life serving our country for 24 years in the United states military. I graduated from the United states Naval Academy and served in the United states Marine Corps as an infantry officer and a prosecutor. My Marine Corps duties included deploying to Iraq as the lead attorney-advisor to the Iraqi prosecutors in the trial of Saddam Hussein and a year on Capitol Hill as the Military Legislative Assistant to Rep. John Kline (R-MN). I completed my service as a Lieutenant Colonel. In 2014, I took on the Madigan Machine as the Republican candidate for Illinois Attorney General, winning 68 of 102 counties through hard work and a strong anti-corruption message. Success in the Marine Corps requires integrity, discipline, and the ability to work with others. I plan on bringing all these attributes to Springfield. I am honored to have the endorsement of Governor Bruce Rauner and retiring Senator David Luechtefeld.

Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on earth.

THE PRICE FOR THIS FREEDOM AT TIMES HAS BEEN HIGH, BUT WE HAVE NEVER BEEN UNWILLING TO PAY THE PRICE. —Ronald Reagan

104 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

Mark Spognardi Candidate for IL 10th Rep.

Keith R. Wheeler Candidate for IL 50th Rep.

Dan Wilbrandt Candidate for IL 66th Rep.

Gary Mandell Candidate for IL 11th Rep.

Nick Sauer Candidate for IL 51st Rep.

Allen Skillicorn Candidate for IL 66th Rep.

Gene Witt Candidate for IL 12th Rep.

David McSweeney Candidate for IL 52nd Rep.

Carolyn Schofield Candidate for IL 66th Rep.

Jonathan Edelman Candidate for IL 15th Rep.

David Harris Candidate for IL 53rd Rep.

John M. Cabello Candidate for IL 68th Rep.

Jessica Tucker Candidate for IL 18th Rep.

Tom Morrison Candidate for IL 54th Rep.

Joe Sosnowski Candidate for IL 69th Rep.

Michael P. McAuliffe Candidate for IL 20th Rep.

Dan Gott Candidate for IL 55th Rep.

Robert W. Pritchard Candidate for IL 70th Rep.

Andy Kirchoff Candidate for IL 24th Rep.

Jillian Rose Bernas Candidate for IL 56th Rep.

Tony M. McCombie Candidate for IL 71st Rep.

Victor Horne Candidate for IL 35th Rep.

Dawn Abernathy Candidate for IL 59th Rep.

Brandi McGuire Candidate for IL 72nd Rep.

Margo McDermed Candidate for IL 37th Rep.

Robert L. Ochsner Candidate for IL 60th Rep.

Jordan Thoms Candidate for IL 72nd Rep.

Grant Wehrli Candidate for IL 41st Rep.

Sheri Jesiel Candidate for IL 61st Rep.

Ryan Spain Candidate for IL 73rd Rep.

Jeanne M. Ives Candidate for IL 42nd Rep.

Rod Drobinski Candidate for IL 62nd Rep.

Wayne Saline Candidate for IL 74th Rep.

Christine Jennifer Winger Candidate for IL 45th Rep.

Steven Reick Candidate for IL 63rd Rep.

Daniel M. Swanson Candidate for IL 74th Rep.

Heidi Holan Candidate for IL 46th Rep.

Jeffery Lichte Candidate for IL 63rd Rep.

Michael J. Desutter Candidate for IL 74th Rep.

Patricia R. “Patti� Bellock Candidate for IL 47th Rep.

Barbara Wheeler Candidate for IL 64th Rep.

John D. Anthony Candidate for IL 75th Rep.

Peter Breen Candidate for IL 48th Rep.

Steven A. Andersson Candidate for IL 65th Rep.

Jacob L. Bramel Candidate for IL 76th Rep.

Mike Fortner Candidate for IL 49th Rep.

Paul Serwatka Candidate for IL 66th Rep.

Jerry Lee Long Candidate for IL 76th Rep.

2016 REPUBLICAN VOTER GUIDE

Illinois House Candidates

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 105

Contributed Content | Voter Guide

John Cavaletto Candidate for IL 107th Rep.

Anthony Airdo Candidate for IL 77th Rep.

Avery Bourne Candidate for IL 95th Rep.

Lindsay Parkhurst Candidate for IL 79th Rep.

Cynthia (Cindy) Deadrick Wolfer Candidate for IL 96th Rep.

Ron Sandack Candidate for IL 81st Rep.

Gary T. Pierce Candidate for IL 96th Rep.

Jim Durkin Candidate for IL 82nd Rep.

Mark Batinick Candidate for IL 97th Rep.

Mike Strick Candidate for IL 84th Rep.

Sara Wojcicki Jimenez Candidate for IL 99th Rep.

Tim Butler Candidate for IL 87th Rep.

Kent Gray Candidate for IL 99th Rep.

Keith P. Sommer Candidate for IL 88th Rep.

Christopher “C.D.” Davidsmeyer Candidate for IL 100th Rep.

Jonathan Kaye Candidate for IL 110th Rep.

Brian W. Stewart Candidate for IL 89th Rep.

Bill Mitchell Candidate for IL 101st Rep.

Dwight Kay Candidate for IL 112th Rep.

Tom Demmer Candidate for IL 90th Rep.

Brad Halbrook Candidate for IL 102nd Rep.

Michael D. Unes Candidate for IL 91st Rep.

Randy A. Peterson Candidate for IL 102nd Rep.

Norine K. Hammond Candidate for IL 93rd Rep.

James M. Acklin Candidate for IL 102nd Rep.

Randy E. Frese Candidate for IL 94th Rep.

Chad Hays Candidate for IL 104th Rep.

Dennis J. Scobbie Candidate for IL 95th Rep.

Dan Brady Candidate for IL 105th Rep.

Christopher M. Hicks Candidate for IL 95th Rep.

Thomas M. Bennett Candidate for IL 106th Rep.

106 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

Charles Meier Candidate for IL 108th Rep. David B. Reis Candidate for IL 109th Rep. John Curtis Candidate for IL 109th Rep. Reginald “Reggie” Phillips Candidate for IL 110th Rep.

Katherine L. Ruocco Candidate for IL 113th Rep. Bob Romanik Candidate for IL 114th Rep. Terri Bryant Candidate for IL 115th Rep. Dave Severin Candidate for IL 117th Rep. Jason V. Kasiar Candidate for IL 118th Rep.

Winning Systems was created and thoughtfully structured to help not-forprofit organizations grow the financial base they need to continue to achieve their mission.

Convey Your Message Build Awareness Secure Funding

Laura Anderson Chief Executive Officer

The types of programs we create, custom-design to meet your needs, and implement include: • New Funding Resources • Event Planning • Board Development • Organization Development & Governance

Cortney Ryan Director of Operations

• Brand Development & Awareness • One-On-One Fund Solicitation • Printed Communication Materials • Capital Campaigns • Lobbying for Your Cause • Public Relations

630.833.7722

www.winningsystemsinc.net

Alison Ruble

President & COO

USO of Illinois

Contributed Content | Voter Guide

IL House District 74 | Wayne Saline SUBMITTED BY THE WAYNE SALINE CAMPAIGN Job creation and retention are the overriding problems in our district as well as the State as a whole. We continue to lead the country in migration from our state having lost 105,000 people in the last year alone. The youth of our state, our future leaders, make up the majority of that number, as Illinois is not providing them job opportunities.

Campaign Website www.WayneSaline.com

Job growth will need to be a combination of changing taxes, regulations and bad policies. Funding for schools and local governments is also a major problem. Eliminating unfunded mandates will relieve some of this burden.

Reviewing budgets and cutting wasteful spending will also be required.

The infrastructure also needs repair. Agriculture is the backbone of Illinois’s economy. Agricultural products must be moved to allow for competitive prices for our farmers. Passing a viable capital bill that will adequately fund the necessary repairs to our roads and bridges is vital.

IL House District 76 | Jacob Bramel SUBMITTED BY THE JACOB BRAMEL CAMPAIGN Jacob Bramel is running for state representative as a Republican for Illinois’ 76th district. As a state representative, he will create a prosperous state while promoting individual liberties for all Illinois residents.

Campaign Website www.PeopleForBramel.com

A dedicated service member, Jacob quickly rose through the ranks during his four and a half year career as a Security Forces member. He earned the rank of staff Sergeant while being recognized for meritorious service within his unit, outstanding leadership, and good conduct. As a Security Forces member, he provided law enforcement duties to the entire base populace, physical security to the only B-2 bomber fleet in the world, and administrative functions while stationed at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri.

While on active duty, Jacob completed his criminal justice degree through the Community College of the Air Force. He continued his studies at the University of Central Missouri earning his bachelor’s degree in political science with a minor in business administration. He graduated with highest honors.

He possesses a moral compass built upon codes and ethos he lives his life by. He is a man of integrity who believes in service before self. If you want a steadfast leader learn more about Jacob Bramel at peopleforbramel.com.

108 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

Contributed Content | Voter Guide

IL House District 95 | Christopher M. Hicks Early in May 2015, I received many calls from several of my political friends and activists urging me to seek the office of State Representative for House District 95 and challenge the appointed current State Representative. After prayerful consideration and family discussions, I decided to accept this challenge that was laid before me.

Campaign Website None Listed

Being actively involved in political issues since my early college years, I have sought to create effective change in political party platforms. I have volunteered for local candidates in the past with the hope of giving Illinois voters a choice. My family and I now feel that the time has come for me to offer myself as a servant in the public arena. I am hopeful that I can bring some of those common sense ideas straight from the people to the Illinois House of Representatives.

2016 REPUBLICAN VOTER GUIDE

SUBMITTED BY THE CHRISTOPHER M. HICKS CAMPAIGN

As you may know, I have also been actively involved in creating change in our communities. Through working with educators and educational professionals, I feel we have made some progress, but our victory is faint. My hope is to bring education to the forefront of issues. I believe there are workable solutions available that will enhance our children’s learning achievements and test scores without creating a hardship for taxpayers. I would like to see Illinois schools return to emphasizing academics rather than attitudes and social agendas. State tax laws should allow parents the freedom to choose whether their children will be home schooled, attend a private or public school without being penalized. It is my goal to see Illinois schools once again setting the standard for education, not measuring up to it.

Another area of interest is the tax burden on the residents of Illinois. We are taxing our best natural resources right out of this state…our people.

Young families must be able to do more than survive financially; they must be allowed to prosper. Senior citizens should receive the social security due to them without once again being taxed on that income. Finally, I refuse to believe it is too late to save the family farm and agriculture in our communities. We need to find ways to help market crops and livestock without creating yet another government­subsidized program. This is one more reason I feel strongly that I must step forward and offer the voters of Macoupin, Christian, Montgomery and Madison Counties a choice.

As you can see, I am excited at the possibility of serving the people of this great state.

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 109

Contributed Content | Voter Guide

IL House District 96 | Gary Pierce SUBMITTED BY THE GARY PIERCE CAMPAIGN

Campaign Website None Listed

My name is Minister Gary T. Pierce. I decided to run for State Representative of the 96th District of the state of Illinois as a Republican candidate because of my Christian beliefs. I truly feel that I’m being compelled by God to do this. I have sit back to long, and watched the government continue to lie to our children. There needs to be honesty, and integrity in our government.

We must stand up for what is morally right. I have preached this to congregations, and now it needs to be heard outside of the congregation. I know that it will be hard task to change the erosion that has already taken place, but we can revive some of it, and stop it at least. It will take more men and women of God to stand firm on the principles set forth by our founding fathers, and return this government back to its intended purpose, which our late great President Abraham Lincoln stated, “A government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth.” I need your help in any way that you can. Please contact me with your support.

IL House District 109 | John Curtis SUBMITTED BY THE JOHN CURTIS CAMPAIGN My name is John Curtis. I have been married to my wife, Erin, for 13 years. We have five living children, and four who have gone before us to be with our Lord. We reside in rural Hidalgo, and have lived here for 12 years. I am a blue collar worker (truck driver for Sherwin Williams) and a veteran of the United States Marine Corps.

Campaign Website www.JohnCurtisStateRep.com

I am a tea party constitutional conservative. I believe in God, country, and family traditions. I will govern by the Bible and the constitutions of Illinois and the United states. I support free speech (not free speech zones), the 2nd amendment, and all inalienable rights guaranteed to the people by our Creator and stated in the constitutions. I am pro-life and pro traditional marriage (I love and respect all people; however, I cannot support choices that my God states in His Word are wrong.)

I strongly believe that power needs to be given back to the people, and that the ideas of the constituents need to be taken to the state house. I maintain that all elected officials need to follow the tradition of being a statesman and not a career politician. My vision for Illinois is to help the less fortunate find a way to better themselves. We cannot and must not give handouts to people who are capable of working, but choose not to. To accomplish this goal, the state has to be a place that is business friendly. I believe that Illinois needs to expand the options for well-paying jobs and small businesses. By lowering corporate tax rates, and decreasing regulations on all businesses, the economy will grow, thereby benefiting all. NO NEW TAXES!

110 | A TIME FOR CHOOSING | March 2016

IL House District 110 | Reggie Phillips

Reggie Phillips grew up in Arthur, Illinois. He and his wife Martha have four children and 10 grandchildren and have worked to build a successful business with nearly 500 employees. Reggie Phillips is an Eastern Illinois University graduate and is serving in his first term as State Representative in the 110th District.

Rep. Phillips believes the state’s budget woes are a direct result of career politicians of both political parties acting in their own self-interest rather than the interest of the people of Illinois.

Official Website www.RepPhillips.com Campaign Website www.ReggiePhillips.com

He wants a solution to the budget impasse, but he believes that solution should not come at the expense of the reforms we need. Illinois needs workers’ compensation reform and regulatory reforms as well as other reforms to make the state more attractive to businesses.

2016 REPUBLICAN VOTER GUIDE

SUBMITTED BY THE REGGIE PHILLIPS CAMPAIGN

Just raising taxes without cutting spending and without implementing muchneeded business reforms is not going to solve Illinois’ financial problems.

Pat Quinn’s tax increase in 2011 proved that. Rep. Phillips believes the key is to implement structural reforms such as workers’ compensation reform and regulatory reform to bring more jobs and opportunities to Illinois, which in turn will generate more revenue for the state. Now is the time to reform Illinois.

March 2016 | www.ChoosingIllinois.com | 111

Candidates and Issue Advocates

Reach motivated, successful voters.

Advertise in our magazine and online channels.

Does liberal Illinois media even reach your voters?

We can do targeted distribution by district.

Sponsored articles and ads in our June, August, and October issues can tell your story to voters as our editorial research and reporting provides voters with unique and reliable information to support the political choices they make.

MARCH 20 16

Voter Guide to Primary March the Republican –––––-----------–––––––– 15, 2016 –– Candidates for U.S. Senator, President, Congress and The General Ass –––––-----------–––––––– embly –– Success Story: The 6th Congressional District

Volume 1, Issue

“If not us , who? If

The Republican

Presidential

1 | March 2016

not now , when?”

-Ronald Reagan

WHO’S YOU BEST BET? R Nominee

W W W. C H O OSINGILLI N O I S . CO M

We don’t just reach Republican voters. We empower Illinois voters as they choose how to turn Illinois around.

A TIME FO R CHOOSI NG

A full page ad combined with a 1 to 3 page article can tell your story more persuasively than junk mail, robocalls, yard signs and brief radio or TV ads.

US $10. 00

IllInoIs 20 16

BREAKING

www.Choosing

Illinois.com

NEWS: Transforming Justice for Vot the Supreme Court: ers in the Bal ance

To discuss advertising, contact ReaganCaucus@Reagan.com A Time for Choosing: Illinois 2016 magazine and ChoosingIllinois.com are published by The Reagan Caucus, Inc.

www.ReaganCaucus.com

Make your choice today.

Subscribe online today at www.ChoosingIllinois.com • Professional journalism serving Republicans, Independents, Reagan Democrats and new Illinois voters.

• Unique market research to support Illinois voter choices for President, Senator, Congress, and the Illinois General Assembly races in 2016.

• Analysis and reporting about issues and the consequences of election choices in districts across Illinois.

• Unique research and resources to empower Illinois voters.

• Choose to become better informed and make a difference in your own community, Illinois and nationally.

Facebook: ChoosingIllinois Twitter: @ChoosingIL

“If not us, who? If not now, when?”

-Ronald Reagan

REACH SUCCESSFUL ILLINOIS CONSUMERS

Advertise or Sponsor Reagan Caucus Projects If your business, community organization, or political campaign wants to reach consumers who don’t think social progress and success are driven by politicians and big government, A Time for Choosing magazine reaches that audience in Illinois with unique reporting to support political choices and accountability.

Sponsorship of Reagan Caucus projects is another option for reaching such individuals to promote your own business or cause.

Our circulation includes Republican party leaders, elected officials, candidates, donors to political campaigns, and active Republican voters as well as independent and new voters who make their own choices carefully.

If you favor reaching and persuading more Illinois families of the potential benefits of changing the political direction and leaders of Illinois, ask about sponsoring our projects.

This includes high net worth individuals such as business owners and executives as well as professional service providers. It also includes many others who aspire to individual success rather than a life of government dependency.

This is a magazine for people who are either pursuing their American dream, or who have already achieved it and are now enjoying the opportunity to give back to their community through the choices they make, rather than just by the many taxes they are forced to pay.

Support of our work empowers more Illinois voters to make a difference. To turn Illinois around, thousands of individuals will need to decide to make different political choices.

President Reagan turned America around. We believe Illinois can lead America again.

ReaganCaucus@Reagan.com The Reagan Caucus, Inc. P.O. Box 439, Fox River Grove, IL 60021-0439

www.ReaganCaucus.com

COURAGEOUS CONSERVATIVES Reigniting the Promise of America

About Ted Ted Cruz has spent his entire life fighting passionately for Limited Government, Economic Growth, and the Constitution. As Texas’ Solicitor General and in private practice, Ted has won landmark victories for U.S. Sovereignty, the 2nd Amendment, and Religious Liberty.

In the U.S. Senate, Ted has been the uncontested leader in the fight against Obamacare and Executive Amnesty, while unabashedly standing up for life, marriage, and our Bill of Rights.

Ted is the only Consistent Conservative in the race, amongst many other “campaign conservatives.” Ted says what he means, means what he says, and does what he promises.

Day One of a Cruz Administration

Ted’s Conservative Priorities

1.

1.

RESCIND every single illegal and unconstitutional executive action taken by President Obama.

2. CRUSH THE WASHINGTON CARTEL

2. INSTRUCT the United States Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute Planned Parenthood’s abusive and illegal activities.

3. INFORM the Department of Justice and the IRS and every other branch of the federal government that the persecution of religious liberty is over.

4. RIP the catastrophic Iranian Nuclear Deal to shreds.

5. BEGIN the process of moving America’s embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

HONOR & PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION

3. REPEAL OBAMACARE 4. GROW THE ECONOMY 5. DEFEND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 6. RESTORE AMERICAN LEADERSHIP GLOBALLY 7.

FIGHT FOR TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE

8. PROTECT THE LIFE OF THE UNBORN 9. DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD 10. STOP AMNESTY 11. STOP THE IRANIAN NUCLEAR DEAL 12. ABOLISH THE IRS 13. PROTECT & HONOR OUR VETERANS 14. END COMMON CORE 15. DEFEND THE 2ND AMENDMENT

Download The Ted Cruz App:

TEDCRUZAPP.ORG

www.TedCruz.org Paid for by Cruz for President

Stay Up-to-Date. Text:

LIBERTY to 51555

Kashmir Sapphire Ring Remotely hidden in the lap of the spectacular snow capped Himalayas is the highest Sapphire mine in the world – Kashmir. Most of the material that exists today was discovered more than 100 years ago and British geologists have found the original mine to be exhausted.

This very rare 4.07 carat no heat Kashmir Sapphire beauty, set in platinum, has an intense soft blue velvet color and is adorned with two half-moon shaped Diamonds weighing 1.06 carats total weight. GĎ‹belin Certificate.

123 West Main Street Barrington, IL 60010 847-381-7900 www.mjmillerjewelers.com