In the early twentieth century, unions were responsible for creating safe and healthy work environments. Unions helped protect people who worked in the private sector, including those who toiled in mines; worked for America’s burgeoning railroad system; and were employed in numerous other dangerous professions. The improvements in working conditions helped fuel the engine of what was to become the greatest nation on Earth.

As the son of a firefighter who was very involved with the Chicago Firefighters Union (Local 2), and as a former Teamster myself (Locals 743 and 744), I have more than my fair share of experience and understanding of both the good and bad aspects of unions.

Today, however, many union leaders push a political agenda that actually works against the best interests of the public they seek to serve. Indeed, the exorbitant pensions of public employees demanded by union bosses have contributed to the creation of the financial crisis now facing the state and nation.

In the private sector, companies and corporations have left the U.S., in part, because unreasonable union demands have made it more profitable for those in the private sector to conduct their operations offshore, which enables them to remain competitive locally, nationally and internationally.

This is not an indictment of all Americans who are members of unions. In fact, many individuals have little or no choice concerning whether or not to be a union member.

Recent stories involving local unions demonstrate how unions are actually working against the best interests of Illinois citizens, families and taxpayers in general.

Wal-Mart

Recently, the Chicago City Council approved the construction of two Wal-Mart stores. The addition of these two stores will bring the total number of this highly successful discount chain — which will be operating within Chicago’s city limits — to three. For years, the fiercest opposition to “big box” stores like Wal-Mart being built in the City came from local unions that opposed them primarily because Wal-Mart workers are non-union members. Union leaders and liberal, pro-union public officials do not like Wal-Mart because they claim that Wal-Mart employees are underpaid and do not receive benefits and other perks that come with union membership. But union leaders’ opposition to these stores came at a high price to the communities they would serve.

Many community leaders in Chicago welcomed Wal-Mart with open arms for a number of reasons. The largest corporation in America would bring hundreds of jobs to areas in the city which have perpetually high unemployment and have been especially hard hit by the current recession. Also, the location of the two planned Wal-Marts would serve regions that are referred to as “Food Deserts.” Often such areas are not served by any of the union-affiliated food chains. Additionally, many Chicagoans who live in poor neighborhoods do not own a vehicle and so cannot travel outside their community. This situation forces families to either shop at small, high-priced “convenience” stores in their neighborhoods — which do not meet their needs — or requires these families to travel considerable distances to reach union food chains, whose prices are much higher than Wal-Mart. Because Wal-Mart is a non-union corporation, they are able to keep their prices low and pass the savings along to their customers.

Also, many Wal-Marts include banking institutions and provide other financial services. Finally, Wal-Mart customers can purchase various products, besides groceries, including apparel and home improvement products, among other consumer services that cannot be found in some inner city neighborhoods.

In this case, it is clear that big labor’s reckless opposition to good paying non-union jobs, which delayed the arrival of low cost food and resources to low income communities in Chicago, were decidedly anti-family.

Road Construction

On July 2nd, the Laborers’ District Council of Chicago and Vicinity voted to walk off roadway construction projects in the Chicagoland area. The union representing construction workers in Chicagoland proper is the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150. However, the strike will affect workers on road construction, bridge repair, and sewer and water improvement projects in ten Chicago area counties.

In Chicago, construction crews walked away from repairs being done on the Eisenhower Expressway, one of the busiest highways in the entire nation. The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) had to secure the sites to avoid headaches for the Fourth of July holiday and the return to normal traffic flow that would occur on Tuesday, July 6th when many motorists resumed regular use of the Eisenhower and other roadways currently under construction.

In the past, the American people have been willing to chip in and do their part when the nation has faced a crisis. Yet in a time when real unemployment numbers are hovering closer to 17 percent across the nation, apparently union bosses with the Laborers’ District Council of Chicago and Vicinity and specifically, the International Union of Operating Engineers feel it’s a good time to flex their muscles while many Americans struggle simply to put food on their tables. The strike was called because of language in the current contract proposal that would increase workers’ health care costs by 10 to 12 percent. *

These union workers are earning $45 to $50 an hour. This group includes the flaggers who hold signs warning motorists to slow down or stop. There would be thousands of Chicagoans who would be happy to earn a third of the wages these union leaders have negotiated for their members. Once again, unions demonstrate an unwillingness to do their part to serve the greater good, instead leaving Illinois taxpayers to foot the entire burden for costs related to America’s crumbling infrastructure.

This is another example of how big labor’s reckless pursuit of unrealistic, unsustainable wages and benefits are decidedly anti-family and come at the expense and inconvenience families and taxpayers.

* According to a recent Rasmussen Poll, 60 percent of Americans favor repealing the Health Care Reform bill that’s now law. Weren’t the unions in favor of it because it was supposed to bring health care costs down and resolve all of our healthcare problems? Apparently the union leaders are as out of step with the average American as are our elected Congressmen in Washington, D.C.

Chicago Public Schools 

The Chicago Public Schools System (CPS) must cut its budget. There is simply not enough money to support an already bloated system which most would agree has failed many children. But here’s the rub. You would think the planned lay-offs required to meet the budget shortfall would be implemented in such a way as to provide the best education possible for Chicago’s children. Most reasonable Chicago residents would agree the best teachers should be the last to be laid-off. Yet a merit system is not being implemented.

Many Chicagoans feel good teachers deserve a good salary. In fact, there are some who contend teachers in parochial schools, who earn far less than their public school counterparts, do a much better job in terms of providing a quality education for their students. But the system of public education — which is dominated by and at the whim of powerful teachers unions — does not follow a path of common sense. Bloated salaries for union management should be cut and bad teachers, no matter how long they’ve been teaching, should be the first of the 2,700 teachers be laid off. Yet the unions continue to protect the jobs of these individuals who have failed our children in the third largest school system in America.

The CTUs refusal to lay off bad teachers directly and negatively affects thousands of Chicago students. Once again, we have another example of how big labor refuses to act in the best interests of taxpayers who expect their resources to be used effectively and efficiently.

Illinois’ General Assembly failed to help failing students in the state’s worst schools on Wednesday afternoon.

Landmark school choice legislation was rejected by lawmakers from both parties Wednesday. This common sense bill would have allowed approximately 22,000 children from Chicago’s worst-performing and most-overcrowded elementary schools to transfer to private or parochial schools. Each student would have received approximately $3,700 in state money to specifically cover tuition costs at those schools. (Chicago public schools currently spend more than $11,000 per student.)

IFI’s Laurie Higgins says the vote came up short in the House despite a bipartisan effort. “It fell just 12 votes short of passing [and] we needed 60 votes. The vote was 48 in favor — 26 of whom were Republicans, 22 of whom were Democrats — and my understanding is that it was just vigorous pressure by the teachers unions that led to the defeat of this bill.”

But this does not mark the end of the road for this bill. State Rep. Kevin Joyce (D-Chicago), the House sponsor of SB 2494, requested that the bill be put on postponed consideration, which means that the bill can still come up for another vote in the House during this session — possibly after the November election. This would require some work on our part to sway 12 House members to support the bill allowing Chicago public school students in the lowest 10 percent failing schools to opt out to nearby private schools.

As expected, the Illinois General Assembly adjourned May 7 without passing a meaningful budget for the state for the upcoming fiscal year. It is likely that our sate lawmakers will return to Springfield to complete that task before a May 31 constitutional deadline.

Because SB 2494 was put on postponed consideration, no official House roll call is available. However, an “unofficial” tally was recorded by CapitolFax.com as the vote was taken on the House floor:

Former Chicago Police Superintendent Phil Cline joined other Illinois law enforcement leaders at a press conference at the Daley Center today announcing their opposition to the proposed “medical marijuana” bill now pending in the Illinois House of Representatives.

Cline, who is co-chair of the newly formed Illinois Partners Providing Marijuana Education, said the group’s goal is “to educate the public and legislators about the facts related to marijuana and counter misinformation and distortions of fact being heavily publicized by pro-marijuana legalization lobbyists.” There are 13 organizations and individuals in the group, including Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police, Illinois Sheriffs’ Association, Educating Voices and Prevention First, a drug prevention resource center.

Peter Bensinger, former DEA Administrator and president of Bensinger, DuPont & Associates, a consulting firm working with Drug-Free Workplace programs, warned that SB 1381, which would legalize marijuana use by individuals with specified ailments, “would be a major problem for employers and drive businesses away from Illinois.” He said the proposed bill “would compromise meaningful workplace drug testing by requiring impairment to be shown.” Proving impairment is not a criterion for current workplace drug testing programs. “This means that someone who tests positive for marijuana in their system could be allowed to drive a car, interact with customers or operate machinery,” he said, adding, “Employers would have to wait for accidents or other problems to happen before they could take action.”

A primary issue for the group is having legislators vote on what is medicine and how it is used to treat patients. “Decisions about what is safe medicine, its dosage, how it is distributed and for what ailments must be left to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and scientific procedures, not voters and state legislators,” Bensinger said.

Cline countered claims by legalization advocates that crime will go down if marijuana is legalized for medical or other use. “As a former Chicago police officer who worked narcotics and gangs, I can tell you that the passing of this bill will lead to more crime and increased drug use,” Cline said. “Street Gangs will open up marijuana dispensaries and use the profits to buy guns, heroin and cocaine, and bail out fellow gang members.”

Cline also expressed concern that the Illinois bill provides no control over the number of dispensaries that can open or where they can be located, other than within 500 feet of a school. “There could be marijuana sold in a shopping mall where your teenagers hang out, at your neighbor’s house, or next door to your business,” he said, adding, “The potential for increased crime around the dispensaries is going to be very high. We’ve already seen that in other states.”

Chief Patrick O’Connor, president of the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police, one of the Partner groups, called the potential passage of medical marijuana legislation “an enforcement nightmare” for local law enforcement officers. “This is the first time I have ever seen the production and distribution of a drug placed into the hands of the users without control or oversight of those users,” he noted.

“The number of plants this bill would allow individuals to possess is excessive and presents a high possibility of ending up on the street,” O’Connor said. He explained that the number of plants that would be available to individuals under the proposed law would produce approximately 30 marijuana joints per day. “This is far beyond the number of joints that anyone could possibly smoke in one day, which means there will be a significant amount of left over marijuana with the high probability of being passed on to friends or sold on the street,” O’Connor said.

Brent Fischer, president of the Illinois Sheriffs’ Association, aimed directly at public statements made by legalization advocates suggesting that law enforcement officers have a vested interest in keeping marijuana illegal. “Regardless of what you have heard, law enforcement’s opposition to this legislation is not about money. It is about the message we send to our youth, the safety of our communities, and the rights of employers and property owners,” he emphasized. “We should learn from our sister states’ horrible experiences with this type of legislation,” Fischer said, stating, “Common sense should tell us that this is not about medicine but about legalization of a recreational drug. This is bad public policy — period.”

The speakers also distributed a list of major medical organizations and governmental agencies that do not support marijuana as medicine. “The American Medical Association (AMA) specifically states that its new position on medical use of marijuana should not be viewed as an endorsement of state legalization efforts. Yet the public is being led to believe that it supports these efforts,” Bensinger explained.

“The public and our legislators deserve documented facts before they make decisions about a substance that already has a serious impact on public health and safety,” Bensinger concluded.

Take ACTION: Send your state representative an email or a fax to tell him or her that you do not want marijuana sold in your neighborhood for any purpose. This is your chance to speak up before it’s too late and before it gets passed in the legislature!

In Springfield on Wednesday, Illinois State Representative Deborah Mell (D-Chicago) took a moment of personal privilege in the legislative chamber to announce that she and her lesbian partner would be traveling to Iowa to get married next year, and to advocate for so-called same-sex “marriage” legislation here in Illinois.

There has been considerable media coverage of Rep. Mell’s announcement — all of it one-sided, but what hasn’t been addressed strikes at the very heart of this debate: the public purpose of marriage.

Marriage is not a relationship that society created in order to give some people benefits and deny them to others. Marriage is the institution that societies worldwide have recognized and encouraged because this unique relationship between a man and a woman provides particular benefits to society, chief among them, the procreation and nurturing of the next generation.

If marriage were centrally or solely about affirming love between individuals, the government would have no reason to be involved in the business of sanctioning marriage. Government sanctions the type of relationship into which children may be born and raised because the government recognizes that that institution which best serves the needs and rights of children is the institution that best serves as the foundation to a healthy society.

Society has historically concluded that marriage requirements — limiting the number of partners, prohibiting incestuous marriages, age and sexual complementarity — best serve the needs of children and therefore best serve the needs of society.

Polyamorous people cannot redefine marriage by eliminating the criterion of numbers of partners. Incestuous couples cannot redefine marriage by eliminating the criterion regarding blood kinship. And those who believe they are in love with minors cannot redefine marriage by eliminating the criterion of minimum age. However, homosexual activists persistently demand that marriage be redefined to suit their selfish desires.

The social science is clear and irrefutable: children do best in stable, healthy homes with both a mom and dad. Therefore, the government has a compelling interest to recognize, protect and promote the God-ordained institution of marriage through legal benefits.

Media Bias

Despite the fact that Illinois Family Institute has been the leading pro-marriage organization in the state, only one news source contacted us in an effort to present a balanced view on this highly controversial and divisive issue. Chicago-area newscasts and newspapers chose instead to promote only one side of this debate, demonstrating an unethical intolerance for diversity of thought. (Perhaps this bias is a contributing factor to the steep decline in newspaper circulation.)

The fact that voters in 31 states have rejected same-sex “marriage,” coupled with the lack of support in Illinois’ Democrat-dominated General Assembly provide evidence for the fact that the majority of Americans are not buying into this radical attempt to redefine the institution of marriage. But this reality doesn’t seem to factor into how the dominant media report on this issue.

A particularly egregious example of media-bias and intolerance occurred recently on the television program Chicago Tonight. The night before Rep. Deb Mell’s announcement on the House Chamber floor, she and her partner appeared on the program for an interview with Carol Marin — a well known liberal television and print partisan.

During the interview, Marin acknowledged that the topic of same-sex “marriage” is polarizing but failed to present adequately the pro-traditional marriage perspective. Instead, Marin eagerly played an active role in the pro-homosexual “marriage” movement by presenting yet another personal and emotionally charged story of a couple who love each other and want to be together for the rest of their lives.

Peter LaBarbera, President of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality said that this is all part of the homosexual agenda. “The obvious media strategy is to present sympathetic gay couples and their being denied supposed rights. Illinois legislators should not be swayed by this manipulative political stunt.”

Marin made a futile attempt to appear objective by half-heartedly presenting a couple of pro-traditional marriage arguments that were quickly dismissed by Mell and her partner, who at one point said, “we are not to be feared… There is nothing scary about letting us have the same rights as everyone else.” Of course, Marin did not follow up or challenge that statement.

If I had been on the program, I would have pointed out that she is partially correct: we should not fear those who identify as homosexual, but we have every reason to fear the political goals of homosexuals, including legalized same-sex “marriage.” Their goals are not only “scary”, but selfish. The elevation of special rights for sexual behavior conflict with religious liberty and freedom of conscience.

Moreover, IFI’s Laurie Higgins has written extensively on the gay agenda’s advance in our schools and points out:

If same-sex “marriage” becomes legal, public school teachers will have no option but to include families led by homosexuals in discussions of family life. Although increasing numbers of liberal elementary school teachers are already including such families in discussions of family life, those who are reluctant to introduce this subversive idea to little children will not have the freedom to avoid the subject of family structures defined by deviancy.

It is legitimate to fear the prospect of loosing the right to live by the dictates of one’s faith, the prospect of having one’s religiously informed views censored by special gay “rights” laws (Hate Speech, ENDA, SNDA,etc.), and it is legitimate to be concerned about the prospect of having a divisive and controversial political agenda taught in schools with own tax dollars, which is already taking place in Massachusetts and California regardless of parent’s objections.

There have been numerous civil rights violations in Massachusetts, New Jersey, California, Sweden, and Canada ranging from the denial of parents’ rights to remove their children from explicit homosexual instruction to the denial of a pastor’s speech rights to the denial of private business owners’ right to run their business as they see fit.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Due to special gay “rights” legislation we are facing a showdown: Gay Rights vs. Religious Freedom. We cannot have both — so which will it be?

Illinois FOCA is dead for this session and Illinois’ Parental Notification Law is one step closer to being implemented!

Illinois families had a tremendous victory today when Circuit Court Judge Daniel A. Riley dismissed the ACLU’s legal challenge of the 1995 Illinois Parental Notification Act. Unfortunately, the judge imposed a stay of his decision for 60 days to allow the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) time to file an appeal.

Please keep this parental rights case in your prayers.

“Today’s ruling represents a great step toward ending underage secret abortions in Illinois. This written decision represents the first time an Illinois court has upheld the Parental Notice Act of 1995 against the ACLU’s challenge,” said Peter Breen, executive director and legal counsel at the Thomas More Society. “We look forward to the day that abortion providers are made to respect the rights of parents to know before their daughters are taken for abortions.”

We are very grateful for our friends at the Thomas More Society who filed an amicus brief in this case.

FOCA Is Dead!

Another huge victory for unborn babies in Illinois, HB 6205 — also known as Illinois FOCA — failed to advance in time for a vote in the House and was sent back to the House Rules Committee, rendering it dead for this session.

Background: HB 6205 would have increase taxpayer funded abortions through Medicaid; eliminated the Abortion Right of Conscience Act; and mandated comprehensive sex education for every student in Illinois public schools — kindergarten through 12.

Your calls, letters and emails made an impact and forced legislators to remove their support! Thank you!

In his budget address before the Illinois Legislature on March 10th, Governor Patrick Quinnannounced his proposal to raise your income taxes by 33 percent instead of having state spending come in line with current state revenue. His original 2010 budget called for $31.5 billion in spending despite receiving only $27 billion in revenue. With unemployment at 11 percent, many Illinois lawmakers seem to be disconnected with reality.

Here are just a few examples of how state lawmakers are spending your tax dollars this fiscal year:

• 3 universities over $1,084,400,00;
• Mid-Continent University of Kentucky – $84,690;
• Ashford University of Iowa – $45,162;
• University of Colorado – $14,410;
• Diversifying Higher Ed Faculty – $1.4 million;
• Jewish Child & Family Services – $3,544,368;
• Chinese American Service League – $2,662,579;
• Asian Human Services of Chicago – $1,189,387;
• Minority AIDS/HIV Prevention & Outreach, AIDS Foundation, AIDS Hotline – $4,484,229;
• Women’s “health promotion” programs – $1,994,000;
• Easter Seals (Chicago & Joliet regions) – over $3 million;
• Prostate public awareness and screening – $1,497,000;
• Department of Human Services – $17,691,700 for “employability development”;
• Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity – $6,250,000 to “upgrade [workers] skills”;
• The Nature Conservancy – $104,271 (assets $4.6 billion in 2009);
• Quail Unlimited – $78,066;
• Chicago Horticultural Society – $71,579;
• Pheasants Forever – $61,312;
• Missouri Botanical Garden – $60,198;
• Iowa Oil Company – $12,945;
• Chicagoland Speedway (Joliet) – $200,000;
• Horseracing interests – $78,120,831;
• County fairs – $2,537,367;
• RTA – $33,570,000;
• Boeing – $1,168,427 (revenues of over $60 billion);
• $100 million to study and promote a 3rd Chicago area airport in Peotone and another $175 million to purchase private land for the airport;
• Town/County tourism and visitor bureaus – $8,943,196;
• 4 energy companies – $13,236,485;
• AFL-CIO Outreach – $1,370,000;
• AFL-CIO – $1,010,000;
• Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Company – $123,781,864 (owns McCormick Place & Navy Pier)

Others include wine producers; tea growers; fisheries; ethnic museums; affluent symphonies, theatres, film festivals, broadcasters, and art institutes; meat, ice cream, egg, ice and popcorn companies.

Why is it that politicians tell us that unless they raise our taxes they will need to cut school funding, health care and aid for the less fortunate when in fact they have other options? Why don’t they cut out wasteful spending?

IFI thanks the Illinois Policy Institute and Citizens Against Government Waste for this valuable research, which can be found on their web sites in a 34-page document titled 2010 Illinois Piglet Book.

In the end, we the people must hold our elected officials accountable for out-of-touch, out-of-control government spending.

Seven minutes after President Barack Obama signed the onerous health care “reform” bill into law Tuesday afternoon, thirteen state attorneys general filed suit against the federal government, challenging the legislation as unconstitutional.

Florida’s Attorney General Bill McCollum has taken the lead, and the attorneys general from Texas, Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah and Washington also are involved in the lawsuit. They claim that the health care law violates Article I and the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Furthermore, at least 36 state legislatures so far have proposed measures to challenge the constitutionality of the new federal bill, while 29 states are also calling for ballot questions to amend their constitutions and 13 are looking to change state law. The Attorney General of Virginia announced plans for an individual lawsuit based upon specific concerns surrounding a Virginia statute. Reports indicate that the Idaho Attorney General may file a similar suit to that of Virginia.

Noticeably absent from the backlash is Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan. According to Chicago Public Radio, a spokeswoman for Madigan says she won’t file a lawsuit, but declined to comment further.

Take ACTION: Send an email or a fax to the Illinois Attorney General’s office urging Lisa Madigan to challenge this legislation to protect the people of Illinois from this over-reach of the federal government.

The federal government has no authority to require Illinois citizens to engage in commerce or force citizens to buy specific goods or services. Lisa Madigan must represent the people and the interests of the state of Illinois.

Pro-Life and Pro-Family citizens must contact their State Representatives to oppose HB 6205.

Early Wednesday morning on March 10th, the Illinois House of Representatives’ Human Services Committee passed HB 6205 (Illinois FOCA) by a vote of 5-2. This was fully expected, as this committee is dominated by pro-abortion lawmakers. State Representatives Naomi Jakobsson (D-Champaign), Constance Howard (D-Chicago), Annazette Collins (D-Chicago), Mary Flowers (D-Chicago) and Elizabeth Coulson (R-Glenview) voted in favor of HB 6205. The only two NO votes came from State Representatives Patricia Bellock (R-Westmont) and Timothy Schmitz (R-Geneva).

Clarke Forsythe Senior Counsel for Americans United for Life (AUL) testified before the committee, pointing out that HB 6205 would elevate abortion to a “fundamental right,” and prohibit any “interference” with or “discrimination” against abortion and that it would unilaterally trump Illinois’ long-standing policy that “solemnly declare[s] and find[s] . . . that the unborn child is a human being from the time of conception and is, therefore, a legal person for purposes of the unborn child’s right to life and is entitled to the right to life from conception under the laws and Constitution of this State.

The bill now moves to the House floor for consideration by all State Representatives. It may be called as early as next week.

TAKE ACTION: Please CLICK HERE to contact your State Representative to ask him/her to vote AGAINST this pro-abortion bill.

You can also contact your State Representative by calling the Capitol switchboard at 217-782-2000.

by John Bambenek – Illinois Family Institute

We are all frustrated by the dysfunction and corruption out of Springfield. Their pursuit of a far-left radical agenda has us stunned year after year. Yet, a majority of us are opposed to their radical plans. How is it that the state legislature made up of 177 people is controlled by only a small handful of radical liberals?

The problem in the legislature is that House Speaker Mike Madigan (D-Chicago) and a radical few like him wield complete control. Despite the fact that over 99 percent of the state does not vote for him, he controls the legislature.

Shouldn’t a constitution prevent such an accumulation of power? It should.

We can elect good people in our districts to the legislature; but without changing the rules, corrupt power brokers and radical leftists will maintain power. But there is something we citizens and voters can do to restore an accountable government answerable to the voters.

The Put-Back Amendment was conceived to break up this consolidation of power. It enacts term limits of 8 years for all legislators. Did you know Mike Madigan was not only a legislator, but Speaker of the House for 28 years? This cannot happen. The Legislature is a part-time job; it shouldn’t be a lifetime career for those from the right families in Chicago.

It ends gerrymandering, the process by which politicians draw districts to ensure they are elected and re-elected for life. Politicians pick their voters, voters don’t pick their politicians. The Put-Back Amendment ends this practice.

The Put-Back Amendment requires ALL legislation to be made public for at least 7 days before final vote, and it allows 25 legislators to force a vote on any bill. This means Mike Madigan and radical leftists can no longer draw up legislation in a back room and unveil it the day of the vote; and they can no longer stop good bills from being voted on.

Imagine if a parental notification bill could be voted on the floor in Springfield forcing politicians to take a public stand…

It returns to 3-member districts we had prior to the Cutback Amendment in 1980 which started the process of centralization of power and converts the legislature to a unicameral body.

How can this happen? It requires you, private citizens, to collect signatures to get this on the ballot. We need 500,000 signatures, and this will be on the ballot in November. Unlike the Protect Marriage Initiative, this is a BINDING petition; which means if the voters say yes, it becomes law.

Many of us complain about how Springfield is run and how it promotes ideas well out of the mainstream, but we don’t know what can be done. Now we have an answer: the Put-Back Amendment. If you help gather signatures on petitions, we can bring REAL reform to Springfield.

It has been said, “All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing…” Will you stand with me against the corrupt power-brokers and radical leftists in Springfield? You can find more information at www.putbackamendment.com which also has the petitions. If you have any questions, contact me at jcb@putbackamendment.com.

The time has come to take back our state. Please join me.

Today, hundreds of thousands will gather in Washington, D.C. for the annual March for Life in protest of Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling which legalized abortion in America. The nation’s highest judicial body handed down this controversial decision in 1973.

“We are expecting the largest turn-out ever,” Randall Terry, director of Insurrecta Nex told the Illinois Family Institute. “It’s time to take a firm stand against abortion in America and Friday’s gathering in D.C. will let legislators know we care about the innocent unborn.”

IFI has learned this week’s constituency breakfast — or “Coffee” as it is now referred to on Sen. Dick Durbin’s (D-IL) website — had been cancelled. The IFI attempted to contact Sen. Durbin’s office in Washington, D.C. for comment, but an automated message stated, “if you’re calling during regular office hours and we don’t answer, call back later because we are experiencing high call volume.”

IFI then put in a call to Durbin’s Chicago office. “What breakfast?” asked a staffer who answered the phone. The IFI next contacted Dick Durbin’s office in Springfield. When simply asked if the staffer knew about the weekly constituency breakfast, with no mention of its cancellation, she said “no” and abruptly hung up.

IFI was more successful in its attempt to obtain information about what now is referred to as a coffee, from Sen. Roland Burris’ (D-IL) Washington, D.C. office. “We will be starting the coffees up again in February. There is no date yet, but if you call back on February 1st, we should have that information available at that time.” Burris’ office did, however, confirm the coffees had taken place on every Thursday in the month of January, until this year.

It is not known why the constituency breakfast or “coffee” is not being held this Thursday.

Durbin’s website states:

Have coffee and doughnuts with Senator Dick Durbin and other members of the Illinois Congressional delegation during your visit to Washington, D.C. … When the Senate is in session, all Illinoisans and their guests* are welcome to meet with Senator Dick Durbin each Thursday at 8:30 A.M.

Contrary to Senator Durbin’s website — which asserts the Coffees began in 1985 — these meetings with Illinois constituents actually began shortly after then newly elected U.S. Senator Peter G. Fitzgerald (R-IL) took office in 1998. Durbin and Fitzgerald came up with this bi-partisan idea which was meant to provide access to the legislators from Illinois constituents visiting Washington, D.C.

Both Durbin’s and Burris’ office would not comment further on the subject.

Some suggest the breakfast or coffee was cancelled because of the annual pro-life rally in the Capitol City. It is also asserted this month’s “Coffees” were cancelled due to the huge crowds which are expected to attend.

“It appears as though Sen. Durbin and Sen. Burris are intentionally closing the door on their Thursday morning “coffee” meeting at a time when thousands — possibly tens of thousands — of pro-life Illinois citizens will be in town for the March for Life,” said IFI Executive DirectorDave Smith. “I certainly hope that is not the case, however, by cancelling this week’s particular “coffee” it does suggest that Illinois’ U.S. Senators do not want to be in the uncomfortable position of having to defend their radical pro-abortion votes to so many pro-life constituents.”

Today, hundreds of thousands will gather in Washington, D.C. for the annual March for Life in protest of Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling which legalized abortion in America. The nation’s highest judicial body handed down this controversial decision in 1973.

“We are expecting the largest turn-out ever,” Randall Terry, director of Insurrecta Nex told the Illinois Family Institute. “It’s time to take a firm stand against abortion in America and Friday’s gathering in D.C. will let legislators know we care about the innocent unborn.”

IFI has learned this week’s constituency breakfast — or “Coffee” as it is now referred to on Sen. Dick Durbin’s (D-IL) website — had been cancelled. The IFI attempted to contact Sen. Durbin’s office in Washington, D.C. for comment, but an automated message stated, “if you’re calling during regular office hours and we don’t answer, call back later because we are experiencing high call volume.”

IFI then put in a call to Durbin’s Chicago office. “What breakfast?” asked a staffer who answered the phone. The IFI next contacted Dick Durbin’s office in Springfield. When simply asked if the staffer knew about the weekly constituency breakfast, with no mention of its cancellation, she said “no” and abruptly hung up.

IFI was more successful in its attempt to obtain information about what now is referred to as a coffee, from Sen. Roland Burris’ (D-IL) Washington, D.C. office. “We will be starting the coffees up again in February. There is no date yet, but if you call back on February 1st, we should have that information available at that time.” Burris’ office did, however, confirm the coffees had taken place on every Thursday in the month of January, until this year.

It is not known why the constituency breakfast or “coffee” is not being held this Thursday.

Durbin’s website states:

Have coffee and doughnuts with Senator Dick Durbin and other members of the Illinois Congressional delegation during your visit to Washington, D.C. … When the Senate is in session, all Illinoisans and their guests* are welcome to meet with Senator Dick Durbin each Thursday at 8:30 A.M.

Contrary to Senator Durbin’s website — which asserts the Coffees began in 1985 — these meetings with Illinois constituents actually began shortly after then newly elected U.S. Senator Peter G. Fitzgerald (R-IL) took office in 1998. Durbin and Fitzgerald came up with this bi-partisan idea which was meant to provide access to the legislators from Illinois constituents visiting Washington, D.C.

Both Durbin’s and Burris’ office would not comment further on the subject.

Some suggest the breakfast or coffee was cancelled because of the annual pro-life rally in the Capitol City. It is also asserted this month’s “Coffees” were cancelled due to the huge crowds which are expected to attend.

“It appears as though Sen. Durbin and Sen. Burris are intentionally closing the door on their Thursday morning “coffee” meeting at a time when thousands — possibly tens of thousands — of pro-life Illinois citizens will be in town for the March for Life,” said IFI Executive Director Dave Smith. “I certainly hope that is not the case, however, by cancelling this week’s particular “coffee” it does suggest that Illinois’ U.S. Senators do not want to be in the uncomfortable position of having to defend their radical pro-abortion votes to so many pro-life constituents.”

Approximately 150-175 people gathered in the rain at the Lincoln statue last Thursday (Oct. 29th) to rally for natural marriage and encourage Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) to “let the people vote” on the a state constitutional amendment to define marriage as “One Man, One Woman.” Speaker Madigan has held this amendment captive for six years now, not even letting it move to a legislative committee for a hearing.

Two busses left from the Chicago suburbs to meet with others from downstate. After the rally, concerned citizens went into the Capitol to lobby state lawmakers for the state constitutional amendment and against “civil unions” legislation. Much good was done by the 100+ individuals who lobbied their representatives and senators wearing white T-shirts with red wording, LET THE PEOPLE VOTE, and a symbol showing a man, woman and child, with the words, “Marriage one man, one woman.”

Below you will see pictures of State Senator Bill Haine (D-Alton) and State Senator Bill Brady (R-Bloomington) who spoke in favor of marriage. Not pictured were State Representative John Bradley (D-Marion) and State Representative David Reis (R-Olney) who are also strong supporters of protecting marriage from redefinition. As you can tell from the party affiliation of the lawmakers listed above — and it is important to point out — the issues of marriage and family have bi-partisan support.

Illinois citizen and activist John Bambenek began a petition drive on Wednesday to place a state constitutional amendment on the November 2010 general election ballot. 
 
The initiative is titled the “Bambenek Put-Back Amendment”.  Bambenek, a political reformer and resident of Champaign, Illinois, is leading an effort to implement a comprehensive package of reforms designed to end the back-room dealings of the General Assembly. 
 
“We started this non-partisan reform effort to reform the Illinois General Assembly and put the people back in charge,” Bambenek told the Illinois Family Institute.  “If you’re like us, you’ve witnessed the mess in Springfield with utter shock.  We were told it was just Rod Blagojevich, but now he’s been removed and the mess remains.  The only consistent feature of our dysfunctional state government is the legislature.”  
 
According to Bambenek, most legislation is written behind closed doors and is never seen by most legislators (much less the public) before they are required to vote on it.  Legislative leaders have complete control over which bills get considered and which ones die.  Illinois voters send 177 legislators to Springfield, but the power is only vested in four of them.
 
In a press release issued on September 23rd, Bambenek detailed what the amendment, if passed, would accomplish.  The Bambenek Put-Back Amendment will fundamentally change the Legislature by converting it to a unicameral (or one chamber) body and return to three-member districts with cumulative voting (total of 177 members).  Additionally, it will implement long ignored reforms such as redistricting, setting term limits of no more than four two-year terms, limiting legislative leaders’ terms to only one session (two years), ending shell bills, requiring a seven-day public viewing period for all legislation, providing for any bill to get an up-or-down vote upon motion of at least 25 members, and greatly modifying the process for legislative pay raises.
 
Bambenek is the principal author of the Bambenek Put-Back Amendment and an author of several books, including a book on the Illinois Constitution– a subject on which he is considered a leading expert.
 
Bambenek is also co-founder of the Illinois Citizens Coalition (ICC) and one of the chief proponents of the Constitutional Convention vote that took place in 2008.  The ICC [www.yesforillinois.com] is a political action committee (PAC) created to inform, encourage, and organize Illinois citizens to take more of an interest in the workings of state government. 
 
In addition to political activism, Bambenek runs a charity called the Tumaini Foundation which strives to provide educational opportunities for AIDS orphans and other disadvantaged children living in rural Tanzania.

For a full text of the “Bambenek Put-Back Amendment” go to: http://www.putbackamendment.com/?page_id=3

In order to obtain ballot status, the “Bambenek Put-Back Amendment” will need to accumulate 500,000 signatures. 
 
Those interested in helping to get this Amendment on the ballot can download signature petitions at: http://www.putbackamendment.com/?page_id=9

Voters in 30 states have been able to cast ballots to pass state constitutional amendments to protect marriage as between a man and a woman. The results have been overwhelming in defense of natural marriage, despite the fact that pro-family voters were vastly outspent by pro-homosexual activists. Clearly, Americans from Florida to Idaho, Arizona to Virginia want to take steps to permanently prevent marriage from being redefined.

Unfortunately, Illinois voters have not been given this opportunity because of one man. For the past three General Assembly sessions (6 years), a constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman has been introduced. And each year, Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) has refused to move it to a committee to be debated and voted on. If this amendment were to come before the entire General Assembly, we are confident that it would receive the two-thirds vote needed to pass. And once passed by the General Assembly, it would be placed on a ballot referendum in the next state wide election for Illinois voters to decide.

Take ACTION: In response to Madigan’s inaction, IFI and other pro-marriage advocates are planning to protest in front of his district office on the south side of Chicago. Please join us in sending a strong message to Speaker Madigan — and please, bring your own respectful home-made signs.

If you are not able to join us for this protest, please click HERE to send an email or fax message to Speaker Madigan asking him to “let the people vote” on the issue of marriage.

Date: Thursday, Sept. 17th (Constitution Day)

Time: 11:00 to 1:00

Location: 6500 S. Pulaski Rd., Chicago, IL 60629

The attempts to erode our freedoms, our families and our faith continue relentlessly, aided and abetted by out-of-control government, activists courts, and the dominant liberal media. Gay activists in Illinois are pushing hard for same-sex “marriage” under the name “civil unions.” The attack on traditional Judeo-Christian values continues to grow more strident and more radical every year.

We cannot cower in fear of tyrants who threaten to destroy this great country! Instead, as William F. Buckley said, “the best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry.”

Please join us in asserting our God-given rights as American citizens to take back the government from the few who would wrest it away from us, or impose their ideology unfairly.

Praise God!! Illinois Parental Rights are Restored!!

Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dissolved the federal injunction against the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act. As a direct result of the court’s decision (Zbaraz v. Hartigan), Illinois parents will be entitled, for the first time since Roe v. Wade was decided, to notification before their minor daughters are taken for abortions. The decision is the culmination of four years work by the Thomas More Society (TMS), particularly TMS Special Counsel Paul Linton, who devised the legal strategy which ultimately led to the lifting of the injunction.

“This is an incredible victory for Illinois parents and their children,” said Peter Breen, Executive Director and Legal Counsel of the Thomas More Society. “Parental involvement laws enjoy overwhelming public support. These laws promote the integrity of the family and ensure that parents are consulted so that their children are not forced into an abortion decision. A wealth of social science data indicates that parental involvement laws lead to lower pregnancy rates, out-of-wedlock births and abortions.”

The Parental Notice Act has been in legal limbo for more than ten years because of the Illinois Supreme Court’s refusal to issue the rules necessary to make the Act effective. Since the passage of the Act in 1995, over 50,000 Illinois minors have obtained abortions, more than 4,000 of whom were 14 years old or younger, without any requirement to notify their parents beforehand.

Following Linton’s legal strategy, representatives of pro-life organizations met with DuPage County State’s Attorney Joseph Birkett in the spring of 2005 to ask him to petition the Illinois Supreme Court to adopt the rules required by the 1995 Act. Birkett agreed and filed his petition in June 2006. On September 7, 2006, the Thomas More Society, representing a range of interested organizations, filed a supplemental petition with the state supreme court. Less than two weeks later, the Illinois Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice Bob Thomas, unanimously adopted Supreme Court Rule 303A.

After various delays, Attorney General Lisa Madigan returned to federal court in March 2007 and petitioned Judge David Coar to lift the permanent injunction which had been issued eleven years earlier. After Judge Coar denied the petition, the Thomas More Society intervened in the case on behalf of State’s Attorneys Stu Umholtz (Republican, Tazewell County) and Ed Deters (Democrat, Effingham County) to press an appeal against the injunction.