Here is U.S. News and World Report (yes, it’s still in business) introducing our topic, the Obama Library:

Chicago: Obama Library Infrastructure Could Total $175M

CHICAGO (AP) — Private dollars will pay for building former President Barack Obama’s library, but road and other work near the Chicago site could cost taxpayers.

The city’s transportation department estimates that the cost of widening streets and building at least four new underpasses near the site in Jackson Park may total $175 million.

From the same article (This is embarrassing):

In January, more than 100 University of Chicago faculty members signed a letter urging the Obama Foundation to find a different location for the center.

Blair Kamin and Mary Wisniewski writing in the Chicago Tribune say that some believe costs to the public will run even higher than $175 million:

Margaret Schmid, co-president of the community group Jackson Park Watch, questioned the city’s $175 million estimate, saying the potential cost of the additional pedestrian underpasses would likely boost the total beyond that.

For years I have questioned the need for presidential libraries, and this entire Obama library episode is a perfect example of why.

The word boondoggle fits well:

boon·dog·gle:

noun: work or activity that is wasteful or pointless but gives the appearance of having value.

verb: to waste money or time on unnecessary or questionable projects.

American Thinker’s founder and editor Thomas Lifson has been on the case of the Obama Library since at least 2014. His writings about it has been both entertaining and informative. Here are a few of his early headlines:

Powerful Illinois political boss wants state taxpayers to pony up $100 million for Obama presidential library

Illinois voters don’t want tax money going for Obama library

Report: Obama library to be built in America’s most corrupt major city

Here is what Lifson wrote last October:

Ironic: Obama Presidential Center sparks community opposition in the cradle of community organizing

On the very turf that gave birth to Saul Alinsky’s version of community organizing, community activists are rising in opposition to the impact of building a huge mausoleum-like memorial to Barack Obama. Young Barack Obama relocated to Chicago in order to study at the feet of Saul Alinsky, who had powered the  Woodlawn Organization to historic prominence as a prototype of community organizing.

Members of the Midway Plaisance Advisory Council (MPAC) have been critical of plans, and the feared Friends of the Park has aligned itself “with local causes” related to the Barack Obama Presidential Center.

If Obama thought a Republican-run Congress was difficult to deal with, now he’s up against the Friends of the Park (FOP), a group notorious for their hardcore stances on projects related to Chicago’s lakefront. Here is part of a recent statement from FOP:

Friends of the Parks remains extremely excited about the Obama Presidential Center coming to Chicago’s south side. And we’re glad that our hometown, former president considers equitable investment in Chicago’s parks to be important. We agree with him on that. What we don’t agree on is the appropriateness of long-term disinvestment in parks that culminates in the all-too-common argument that the only way to fix a park is to build a building in it.

. . .

We are saddened by Obama’s dismissiveness toward the many Chicagoans who dare to express opposing views or the need for appropriate vetting and review, not the least of which is the federally-required Section 106/NEPA review. Apparently, he’s been away long enough that he has forgotten how the “City that Works” works. On a daily basis, we Chicagoans suffer the consequences of poor public policy decisions that stem from inadequate long-term planning, transparency, and oversight.

Whaaat? Obama is being accused of “talking down” to people and being dismissive of opposing views?

Wait, there’s more. Again, here’s Lifson:

High-handed Obama Presidential Center is losing community support

[Obama’s] desire to have a monument to himself in the form of the “Obama Presidential Center” (not a library, and not part of the National Archives System) is roiling community organizations who are not convinced that their park should be sacrificed to build a large shrine to the 44th president.

In fact, revisions to the initial plans have not mollified the opposition. Revised plans unveiled made the project even taller and more grandiose (and less white).

It’s no wonder Barack likes to travel overseas where his audiences are less aware of his real legacy and probably less aware of his arrogance and narcissism.

For more information, follow these links:

Black activists shout ‘Shame on you!’ at Chicago aldermen supporting Obama Presidential Center

Plans revised for ‘Obama Presidential Center’: Taller, uglier, and a little bit less white

Obama non-library ‘presidential center’ in Chicago devolving into a fiasco

IFI Worldview Conference May 5th

We have rescheduled our annual Worldview Conference featuring well-know apologist John Stonestreet for Saturday, May 5th at Medinah Baptist Church. Mr. Stonestreet is s a dynamic speaker and the award-winning author of “Making Sense of Your World” and his newest offer: “A Practical Guide to Culture.”

Join us for a wonderful opportunity to take enhance your biblical worldview and equip you to more effectively engage the culture.

Click HERE to learn more or to register!

Last time we heard from Illinoisans John Westberg and Steve Rauschenberger, two knowledgeable voices when it comes to the topic of manufacturing in the United States.

An article earlier this year by American Thinker’s Thomas Lifson titled, “Free Trade, Fair Trade, and Reality,” lays out his perspective on the free v. fair debate: President Donald Trump “has repeatedly stated that he wants ‘free trade’ that is also ‘fair trade,’” Lifson writes, “I am all for free trade, but it’s got to be fair.”

Academic and political critics are quick to point out the oxymoronic nature of this statement. Free trade means no government interference with private entities making the deals they see as beneficial. “Fair” trade means that someone else’s idea of fairness is imposed on deals that the parties find satisfactory to themselves.

Lifson cites examples of how corporations and governments engage in a “give and take” all the time. Governments force companies “to offer concessions for the privilege of doing business unhindered by limitations and harassment.”

President Trump is the first postwar president to acknowledge this reality, and to promise to play the game as well as it is being played against the US. When he blasts the negotiators who have inked trade deals, he is really criticizing the policy of the US playing by the rules while others play hardball, with pressures both formal and informal being used to extort value from American companies and ultimately from the American economy. Those [research & development] jobs overseas won’t generate nearly as many American jobs as they would if located in a US facility.

President Trump is really writing the obituary for the era in which the US kept everyone else happy by conceding to others the ability to play economic blackmail while self-righteously refusing to play that game to protect our own interests. He is a realist, and it is refreshing.

In another article at American Thinker, Steve Feinstein, in a piece titled “Manufacturing a Crisis,” writes:

If there is one thing that Democrats and Republicans always seem to agree on, it’s this: Manufacturing jobs are the key to economic success in this country. We’ve got to “revitalize” the manufacturing sector if the economy is to generate strong job growth and economic expansion.

That’s just such total hogwash, because it’s not true and it’s not reflective of reality.

Cheaper foreign goods, Feinstein writes, enables “American consumers to spread their money around in more areas and it frees up American workers to pursue other — better-paying and more sophisticated — things.”

Have those “better-paying and more sophisticated” “‘things”(!) been keeping pace with the number of jobs lost in the manufacturing sector? A lot of the people in Rust Belt states, whose standard of living has stagnated or fallen over the past 20 years, said “no they haven’t kept pace” when they voted for Trump.

According to some “economic troglodytes,” Feinstein writes, “we’re only in the economic sweet spot if we’re manufacturing cheap Bic pens and Keds.”

Actually, the value of our manufacturing sector’s output is at record levels, even if the absolute number of workers employed in manufacturing is less than the peak. It’s directly analogous to our agricultural output being the highest ever, even though none of you farm.

Take that you economic troglodytes!

Next time you hear an ill-informed politician talk about how we need to “bring our manufacturing jobs back,” you’ll know better. We manufacture exactly what we should in this country. There’s always a plus/minus to how much we make here depending on the specific conditions of the moment, but you should hope you never see a U.S.-made Bic pen again.

There is also an interesting bunch of articles at American Thinker written by Howard, Raymond, and Jesse Richman (here is their personal website). They are big on the topic of “balanced trade,” and they regularly promote their idea of using a “scaled tariff.”

They also remind everyone that the word “trade” is used in the U.S. Constitution. I’ve linked to a few of their articles below.

And if you think economists are mild mannered group, note this opening from one of their articles last year:

In one of National Review’s hit pieces against Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump (“What Trump Doesn’t Understand — It’s a lot about our Trade with China”), correspondent Kevin D. Williamson called Trump a “dangerous buffoon” because he would threaten tariffs upon China’s products and thus risk a trade war with China. But it’s not Trump who is the buffoon on trade; it is National Review!

Trump plans to take on the huge U.S. trade deficit with the world, and especially with China. He threatens to place upon Chinese products a tariff like the 45% tariff that China recently placed upon some U.S. cars. Such a threat could lead to negotiations between the U.S. and China about balancing trade, and Trump wrote the book on negotiations.

When an article tears into a candidate for having his facts wrong, the magazine that prints it probably should check to make sure that the candidate is actually wrong. But, National Review failed to fact-check this piece.

They go on in the article to compare the NR’s “facts” with their own.

Next up, more on the debate about manufacturing jobs and trade.

Three articles by Raymond Richman, Howard Richman and Jesse Richman:

Free Trade vs. Balanced Trade

The People are Right: It’s Time to Balance Trade

How to Restore America’s Manufacturing Innovation

Download the IFI App!

We now have an IFI mobile app that enables us to deliver great content based on the “Tracks” you choose, including timely legislative alerts, cultural commentaries, upcoming event notifications, links to our podcasts, video reports, and even daily Bible verses to encourage you. This great app is available for Android and iPhones.

Key Features:

• It’s FREE!
• Specific content for serious Christians
• Performs a spiritual assessment
• Sends you daily Scriptures to encourage and equip you
• You determine when and how much content you get

Most everyone has heard about “sanctuary cities” during the past few years due to the attention they received during the presidential election. But have you heard of sanctuary states? How about sanctuary government buildings? Governor Bruce Rauner has agreed to sign SB 31 into law — a bill that will make taxpayer funded facilities sanctuaries for people who are here illegally.

Here is one summary of what “sanctuary” means:

The concept of a sanctuary city does not mean it is a place where federal law is unenforced by the feds. Rather, it is a place where local authorities have elected not to spend their tax dollars helping the feds to enforce federal law. The term “sanctuary city” is not a legal term but a political one.

While the United States Justice Department begins to pursue withholding federal funds from cities like Chicago for their refusal to cooperate with federal immigration law enforcement officials, our governor and General Assembly are about to enlarge the controversy, expected to cost the state billions of dollars.

Thomas Lifson at American Thinker wrote about the potential tally for just Chicago alone: Oops! Trump’s ‘sanctuary city’ penalties could cost Chicago $3.6 billion.

If the Trump Administration wins this fight (ultimately in the courts), it’s easy to figure the cost to Illinois taxpayers will be many times that Chicago estimate.

Money isn’t the only issue. The status of sanctuary state also creates a potential public safety issue.

This is from the Illinois General Assembly’s website page for SB 31 — I have separated them into bullet points for easier reading:

[CORRECTION — A reader kindly brought to my attention that the language below did NOT make it into the final version of the bill that was passed — see Amendment 3 here. In truth, the language was not necessary since state and local law enforcement officers are prohibited from making any arrests anywhere in Illinois according to the guidelines of the statute. Focusing on the “state-funded facilities” only made clearer the offensive nature of the law.]

Provides that absent a judicial warrant or probable cause of criminal activity, a government official shall not make arrests in the following State-funded facilities or their adjacent grounds:

• State-funded schools, including
• licensed day care centers,
• pre-schools, and
• other early learning programs;
• elementary and secondary schools, and
• institutions of higher education…

The list continues, but you get the drift.

The opinion divide on crime rates in sanctuary cities separates just as you would expect. “Sanctuary” proponents claim crime rates are not higher where illegal alien populations are greater, sanctuary opponents say crime rates are higher. Both sides cite studies to back up their contention.

What are the facts? In an April article at The Hill, Ron Martinelli, former minority community violent crimes detective, wrote:

Most states and our federal government have kept information and statistics about illegal immigration, crimes committed by illegals and the costs borne by you the U.S. payer out of public view. It is in fact difficult, but not impossible to locate accurate crime statistics involving illegal immigrants. The statistics are buried both to suit a political agenda and to avoid public outcry.

His article, “The truth about crime, illegal immigrants and sanctuary cities,” is worth your time. It is packed with important information to consider.

Another article to read is from Scott Erickson, posted at the Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal website back in February: “The Truth About Sanctuary Cities and Crime Rates.” After a survey of the statistics, he writes:

No community of decent people—citizens, illegal immigrants, or otherwise—wants to live in a society beset by violence and social dysfunction. Stripping local law enforcement of the ability to merely cooperate with their federal counterparts on issues as plain as the removal of a dangerous criminal jeopardizes the safety of all law-abiding individuals.

If state and local law enforcement will be prohibited from making any arrests anywhere in Illinois according to the statute, let’s take another look at the kind of facilities that will be made into sanctuaries by Bruce Rauner signing SB 31:

• State-funded schools, including
• licensed day care centers,
• pre-schools, and
• other early learning programs;
• elementary and secondary schools, and
• institutions of higher education…

Is Illinois about to endanger children by preventing law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration officials?

Again, from the SB 31 web page showing the pre-amended bill — again, revealing legislative intent:

Provides that a law enforcement agency or official shall not (1) give any immigration agent access to any individual; (2) transfer any person into an immigration agent’s custody; (3) permit immigration agents use of agency facilities or equipment, including any agency electronic databases not available to the public, for investigative interviews or other investigative purpose in executing an immigration enforcement operation; or (4) respond to immigration agent inquiries regarding any individual’s incarceration status, release date, or contact information except insofar as the agency makes that information available to the public.

With Chicago’s murder rate and Illinois’ fiscal condition, is this really the time to have our state “harbor federal fugitives who have broken federal immigration law by crossing the border illegally”?

“Harboring federal fugitives” sure sounds different than the act of providing a “sanctuary,” doesn’t it?

Earlier this month, Illinois Review reported that according to the communications director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, “Signing SB 31 into law would make Illinois the state most open to illegal aliens besides California”:

“Not only would it make Illinois open to those in the country illegally, it could create dangerous situations for the public and add more financial burdens to the state,” Dave Ray said. “And isn’t the state of Illinois already having financial difficulties?”

To learn more about the current and historic legal tussle between the feds and the states, read this article by Douglas V. Gibbs: Sanctuary Cities Violate Supremacy Clause.

The Illinois Senate passed SB 31 on May 4th by a vote of 31-21, and the Illinois House passed it on May 29th by a vote of 62-49.  The bill has been on Gov. Bruce Rauner’s desk since June 29th.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to Gov. Bruce Rauner to ask him to veto this legislation. We only have a short window of opportunity to speak out.

ALSO: please call the public comment lines in the Governor’s office in Springfield: (217) 782-0244 and Chicago (312) 814-2121.

For even more on the politics, crime rates, and economics of sanctuary cities and states, a collection of articles can be found here.

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.