The SAFE Banking Act is a federal bill that would give the “medical” and recreational marijuana industries (and cartels) access to banking privileges, such as checking and savings accounts, credit lines and loans, enabling and legitimizing what has been an all cash trade to make real estate deals, payroll, insurance and operating costs much easier.

Furthermore, this could foreseeably grant them a listing in the stock exchanges, which would give them an opportunity to raise a great deal of money, ultimately helping these havoc-producing, soul-destroying companies to open more retail businesses, purchase more land to grow the drug, and expand into more markets.

The bill has passed in the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 321-103, despite the fact that marijuana is classified as an illegal Schedule 1 Drug “with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”

Sixteen of the 18 members of the Illinois Congressional Delegation voted “yea,” including U.S. Representatives: Bobby Rush (D-1^st Dist.), Robin Kelly (D-2^nd Dist.), Daniel Lipinski (D-3^rd Dist.), Jesus Garcia (D-4^th Dist.), Mike Quigley (5^th Dist.), Sean Casten (D-6^th Dist.), Danny Davis (D-7^th Dist.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-8^th Dist.), Jan Schakowsky (D-9^th Dist.), Brad Schneider (D-10^th Dist.), Bill Foster (D-11^th Dist.), Mike Bost (R-12^th Dist.), Rodney David (R-13^th Dist.), Lauren Underwood (D-14^th Dist.), Adam Kinzinger (R-16^th Dist.) and Cheri Bustos (D-17^th Dist.).

The SAFE Banking Act would effectively neuter federal law to empower and facilitate the marijuana industry.  “We have patients and other consumers looking to order and pay online, whether it is for pickup or delivery,” says Dina Rollman, senior vice president for regulatory and government affairs at Green Thumb Industries. “With cannabis businesses being deemed essential in so many states during the COVID-19 crisis, the need for the SAFE Banking Act is greater than ever.” (Source: “With crisis, cannabis firms see a shot to get banking relief” Crain’s Chicago Business, 5/1/20) 

U.S. Representative Ed Perlmutter (D-Colorado) is anxious to help the marijuana industry. He plans to include the SAFE Banking Act in upcoming COVID-relief legislation, another stimulus bill. In addition to assisting the marijuana industry to have access to banks, he co-sponsored a bill that would provide federal coronavirus aid to marijuana businesses.

According to Crain’s Chicago Business, unlike many other industries during the pandemic, the marijuana industry is growing substantially.

John Sullivan, an executive vice president at Chicago-based Cresco Labs, a large marijuana company, said, “I think cannabis can make the case for being a huge driver of the recovery, increasing state and federal tax revenues. More people will get interested in this industry and what it can do.”

We have seen what it can do to families and communities in Colorado, Washington and California. The consequences are enormous.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to contact your federal officials: President Donald Trump, U.S. Senators Dick Dubin, Tammy Duckworth, and your U.S. Representative. Ask them to uphold and enforce federal law against the marijuana industry. Ask them to vote AGAINST the “SAFE Banking Act.”

Note: While the bill has passed in the U.S. House, it is uncertain if the U.S. Senate will vote on it at this time. If not, it could potentially be back in the House for another vote in the future. Above is the list of how your congressman voted. Please include reference to their vote in your email. Ask them to oppose it if it returns to the U.S. House.

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!

If signed into law by Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner, HB 40, which passed in both the Illinois House and Senate, will force taxpayers to subsidize abortions for women on Medicaid and for women covered by state employee health insurance.

Feticidal maniacs in Illinois—including lawmakers—are desperate to have Rauner sign this bill into law. They reason that since abortion is legal, the public should subsidize it. Leftists believe all Illinois taxpayers should pay for poor women’s and state employees’ choices to have their unborn children killed. Ironically, while Leftists command that men never express an opinion on abortion, Leftists also say male taxpayers should fund abortion. Word to Leftists:

1.) Those tiny humans growing inside women get half their DNA from men.

2.) The issue of whether the product of conception between two humans is a human with rights is a human rights issue—not exclusively a women’s issue.

3.) There are no criteria that Leftists can manufacture to defend the right of some humans to snuff out the lives of other humans that apply only to incipient human lives. Whether those criteria are intrinsic or extrinsic to humans in the womb, they all can be applied to humans who escaped the torture chamber that the womb has become. Intrinsic criteria such as immature development, dependency status, lack of sentience, or lack of perfection apply to humans outside the womb as well. Extrinsic criteria such as being considered a financial or emotional burden also apply to humans outside the womb.

4.) According to Leftists, men can have wombs, menstruate, become pregnant, and give birth, and, therefore, abortion is a men’s issue.

5.) Using the language of “rights,” feticide-defenders are appealing to the respect Americans have for “negative rights”—also known as liberties—(e.g., the right to vote, assemble, exercise one’s religion, and speak freely), which are not accompanied by any obligation for others to subsidize them. But what feticide-defenders are really suggesting—without explicitly saying—is that women have a “positive right” (i.e., an entitlement) to abortion, which imposes a duty on others to subsidize it. Abortion, however, is not an entitlement, and society has no obligation to pay for women to get them. Neither wanting something; nor really, really wanting something; nor experiencing suffering from not obtaining this desperately desired thing means the public has an obligation to provide it.

7.) We, as a benevolent society, have created safety nets to provide for basic health care for those who are unable to provide for it themselves. No matter how many times feticide-defenders call the killing of incipient human life “health care,” it’s not. Killing human fetuses is neither health care nor reproduction. It’s death facilitation and anti-reproduction. If Leftists want to help poor women and state employees kill their offspring, they have the choice and negative right to do so.

In an editorial appearing in Crain’s Chicago Business, K. Sujata, president and CEO of the Chicago Foundation for Women (CFW), frets about the implications of an HB 40 veto. She worries about the economic interests of pregnant women, many of whom choose to have sex when they can’t afford or don’t want to provide for the needs of humans who may result from their choice to have sex:

HB40 also removes restrictions on reproductive health care coverage that put women’s economic security at risk…. In order for women and their families to achieve full economic security, all women in Illinois must be able to make the important decision of when to start or grow their family.

Do Illinoisans really have a moral obligation to provide for the “full economic security” of state employees? Do Illinoisans really have a moral obligation to pay for the destruction of the tiny family members already growing inside of poor women?

And how does killing humans—including female humans—whose lives are just beginning fulfill this core principle of the Chicago Foundation for Women:

We believe that equality is a universal human right, and we uphold respect and dignity as guiding principles in all our work.

If Leftists really believe that more developed, sentient, able-bodied, and cognitively superior humans have the right to exterminate less-developed and cognitively and physically impaired humans whose self-awareness is diminished or absent, then they are kindred spirits with Princeton University bio-unethicist Peter Singer who makes the same argument but applies it to post-natal humans as well. What possible ethical difference do a few days or few inches of birth canal make in terms of the right to kill?

Remember ten years ago when Hillary Clinton expressed her belief that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare. And by rare, I mean rare“? Northwestern University law professor Andrew Koppelman expressed the same sentiment during a forum at Northwestern Law School several years ago. When I asked why abortion should be rare if incipient human life is so devoid of personhood as to be undeserving of even minimal constitutional protection, he had no answer.

If Leftists really wanted abortion to be rare, they wouldn’t be fighting tooth and nail for the passage of HB 40, which, it is estimated, will result in an additional 15,000 abortions each year at taxpayer expense.

But no one actually believes Leftists care about whether abortion is rare or common. To them destroying human fetuses is no different from excising tumors.

Wombs should be sanctuary spaces and no-kill people shelters where all humans are safe. Governor Rauner should kill HB 40.

Take ACTION: Click Here to email Governor Bruce Rauner. Urge him to keep his pledge to veto HB 40. Also, please continue to call the governor’s public comment line every day until this is resolved: (217) 782-0244 and (312) 814-2121. 

You can also send Gov. Rauner a message via Twitter: @GovRauner

Listen to Laurie read this article in this podcast:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2Kill-HB-40-Wombs-Should-Be-Sanctuary-Spaces-and-No-Kill-Shelters.mp3

PLEASE consider a financial gift to IFI to sustain our work.
We’ve stood firm for 25 years, work diligently to accomplish our mission to
“boldly bring a biblical perspective to public policy” in Illinois.

It’s a sad tale of two cities.

The news out of Washington, D.C. this spring is that President Donald Trump and the Republican majorities in Congress plan on cutting taxes. The unsurprising news out of Springfield, Illinois is that General Assembly Democrats are planning to raise taxes.

Also not surprising is that there is a hot debate about whether the GOP tax cut efforts in D.C. can succeed. There is no debate, however, about Illinois Democrats’ accomplishing their mission. Especially when Republicans, including Governor Bruce Rauner, appear poised to help the Democrats.

What is also not debatable is whether raising taxes in Illinois will be enough to make ends meet in a state where spending continues to be out of control. It won’t be.

Sometimes a trip to dictionary.com is helpful even when we all know the definitions. The first word for today is “insatiable”:

• incapable of being satisfied or appeased
• not able to be satisfied or satiated; greedy or unappeasable

As in an insatiable hunger for more of your tax dollars.

Here are three synonyms:

• voracious, unquenchable, bottomless

No one will ever provide the liberal Democrats in Illinois enough money to make them happy. I offer as proof the Illinois government employee pension systems. If Republicans would just use some of that Bruce Rauner/Ken Griffin money to get the word out about how corrupt those systems are, maybe Republicans would start to win more elections here.

Here is the title of an article from the Illinois News Network earlier this week: Study: Illinois’ public pensions are worse off than state claims. From the article (and notice the use of the word “bottomless“):

Illinois has on hand only 29 percent of the funds needed to meet the promises made to current and future retirees. That’s the worst record of any state, and [Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Joshua] Rauh concludes that for the state to stop sinking further into debt, it would have to contribute more than twice what it contributes now.

Illinois now devotes nearly 25 percent of its state budget to the state worker pensions, so doubling that figure means close to half of the state’s revenues would have to go to pensions to avoid accumulating further debt.

“I think people increasingly understand that they’re throwing tax dollars into a bottomless pit,” Mark Glennon, the founder of the WirePoints website and a former venture capitalist and financial adviser, told Illinois News Network.

Putting more money in the current system is futile, according to Glennon.

“The smart ones already know the current situation, but they’re not honest enough to talk about it in public,” he said.

A dozen years ago pension expert Bill Zettler began talking about it — and both political parties ignored his warnings. Bill regularly pointed out the simple truth that if something is impossible — it won’t happen.

That’s our second word for the day: impossible.

In that same Illinois News Network article, Mark Glennon merely confirmed what Bill Zettler had to say many years ago:

The promises that have been made to retirees in Illinois eventually will have to be broken, and the pensions won’t be made in full, according to Glennon.

“Ultimately, I think that’s unavoidable …” he said. “The numbers are far beyond insurmountable already.”

Getting back to the word “impossible” — as I wrote nine years ago, we have two competing impossibilities. Right now there isn’t support to make the needed changes, and yet there isn’t enough money to meet the obligations.

How do we get to a solution? Until public support is rallied — solving the pension problem in Illinois is “incapable of being done, undertaken, or experienced.” It is “incapable of occurring or happening.”

The credit rating agencies understand the situation in Illinois clearly. Note this headline from Crain’s Chicago Business: “Illinois’ credit rating slashed to a cut above junk.” Need I define the word “junk”?

IFI depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

-and, please-