Independent women fleeing Democrats in historic numbers

In a nutshell:  In September, women favored Democrats by 14 points, according to a a New York Times/Siena College poll. Now, independent women favor Republicans by 18 points.

That's a humongous 32-point swing. In just one month.  Staggering. Unheard of. 

As a journalist, I have never seen a swing that large so quickly. I can't say in the history of political polling going back to the days of President Harry S Truman that such a rapid switch is unprecedented. But I can't find or remember it happening.  It is certainly momentous.

And in this, the New York Times, buried the lede of the story--no surprise there. The amazing swing was mentioned in a few paragraphs deep in the story. The story led with news that everyone already knew: That Republicans were gaining an edge, as most voters worry about the economy. Either the editors are stupid or are so blinded by their partisanship that they missed what a student in a freshman in a journalism class would have spotted.

Hardly any need to explain the implications of such a massive shift. Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court scuttled Roe v. Wade, the 1972 decision that legalized abortion and, as is proper in a democratic country, will let the people decide what is legal, Democrats have been predicting a huge swing among independent women onto their side because if you're a women, you are pro-choice, no exceptions. Surely, the mid-term elections would be a referendum on abortion, Democratic strategists decreed. Abortion will become the biggest issue and allow their party to maintain its House majority and firmly control the Senate. 

Instead, the voters who identified abortion as the top issue amounted a mere five percent of those surveyed.

We'll see whose political strategy emerges victorious. But so far the signs aren't auspicious. The Times story noted: "But the poll showed that Republicans opened up a 10-percentage point lead among crucial independent voters, compared with a three-point edge for Democrats in September, as undecided voters moved toward Republicans." [Emphasis added.]

A side note: If you are college educated, you're more likely to vote for Democrats. Puzzling. You'd think that the better educated wouldn't so easily ignore the pressing issues--from inflation to crime and the open border. Maybe that's a commentary about the lousy job that higher education is doing.

I suspected there'd be a shift of independent women last year when I saw the organizing and the activism of suburban women who were outraged the Democrats in general had infected America with their pandemic school closures and the high-and-mighty attitude of school administrators, union leaders and the Biden admonition, an attitude that unbelievably denied the right of parents to raiser their kids as they think is best. 

More women who said they were Democrats were now voting for "the other guy. Think Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin.

Democrats for the most part still don't see it. At least the party's progressive wing. How long will it take intelligent, moderate Democrats to rise up and take their party back? If there is a party left after the mid-term elections.

Chicago moves to suppress voters. Florida doesn't.

Parody

My blank mail-in ballot for the coming election arrived recently at my Florida home, but it's way too difficult to handle. My vote is being suppressed!

First of all, they expect me to walk to a mail box to send in my ballot to be counted. Good Lord! Why aren't they sending someone around to my house to pick it up?! 

Secondly, when I looked at the instructions for filling out the ballot they were clearly meant to suppress  the minority vote. Even though the ballot and instructions were in English and Spanish. What about Gaelic, my ancestors native tongue? This is offensive. This is not equity!

The complexity of the instructions is an arrow directed at people of color. I mean, you've got to put the completed ballot into a secrecy envelope that is inserted into the mailer. As if that's not complicated enough, you've got to remember to sign and date it. Far too complex for a person of color to understand.

Just requiring me to sign it is offensive. They're going to use my signature to see if it is identical to the  signature on my voter registration signature. What right does anyone have to question my honesyt? Just think of how many people, especially people of color, will forget to do it thereby invalidating my ballot.

The demand that my mailed-in ballot must be received before 7 p.m. on voting day surely is disenfranchisement. I demand that I have the right to vote when, where and how I vote. 

It's a threat to democracy.

Illinois governor debate scorecard: Bailey +1; Pritzker -3

 Most reports of the recent debate between Democrat incumbent Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Republican challenger, state Sen. Darren Bailey  focused on the their slinging back and forth charges that the other guy is lying

So, in the court of whose lying, it's a wash. Every politician prevaricates, fibs, embellishes, fabricates and equivocates so both  Pritzker and Bailey were essentially correct.

But on the issues, Bailey too often looked as if he was dodging and weaving. He could have scored more points if he had been better prepared and if he had more confidently, pointedly and clearly provided an answers.

For example, he knew he was going to be asked about the Democratic's biggest issue: abortion. He correctly said that restricting abortion in deep blue Illinois is practically and politically impossible. It came off as evasive. He should have attacked in detail the Democrats and Pritzker for enacting the most radical, extreme and permissive abortion law in the country. Under it, abortion is permitted without exceptions up to the moment of birth for any reason. Parents can legally be kept in the dark about their pre-teen or teenage daughter. 

That allowed Pritzker to blow hard about how he is protecting a woman's "right to choose." If only one of the moderators had asked him at what stage of pregnancy should abortion be restricted. 15 weeks? Viability?  Never? If the moderators had followed up, he would have had to say never.

But Pritzker is much more funderable on the issues that more voters care about. His claims about his "balanced" budget can be discarded on their face: He "balanced" the budget thanks to the federal one-time Covid-19 pandemic aid. It was so generous that Pritzker used it to fund teachers' and other government workers's pensions--something that the law doesn't permit. 

More to the point, the federal aid is a one-time payment. So, what happens next year when the munificent federal aid is not available. I guess he'll have to perform another slight of hand to balance next year's budget when the aid disappears. (I would have asked him if he became president would he continue to hand such larges to the states.)

Another major issue is the governor's overly wrought pandemic response. Lockdowns, classrooms shut down, restaurants and small businesses closed. He literally killed jobs. Would someone please tell him that he wasn't "following the science?" The comprehensive science that includes not just the sometimes wrong advice (actually, demands) of the likes of Tony Fauci but he ignored the science about how children have suffered emotionally, educationally and more from being subject "remote learning." Or how could you expect an economy not to suffer from shutting down the...economy.

Pritzker can be criticized on numerous fronts (see my new book, The governor you don't know, for the details). But my strongest criticism is reserved for the "journalists" who questioned the candidates. They made the mistake that so many reporters do these days: Not listening. There were multiple opportunities for follow-up questions that would have dug deeper into the candidates' answers. But, no. For the moderators, this was their moment. To show off. They had their prepared questions and come hell or high water, they would ask them. So, the debate wandered here and there, directionless and less useful than could be. Leaving more questions unanswered than answered.

So, who lost the debate? The viewers.

I'm interviewed by Jeanne Ives on her podcast, "The Real Story"

 

Jeanne Ives ran as a true conservative again Bruce Rauner and narrowly beat the incumbent governor. She's still active as one of the genuine voices of conservatism in Illinois.

We talked about Illinois politics, the captured media and lots more. We also discussed my book, "The Governor You Don't Know."  You can get a PDF or an audio version here: https://youtu.be/RFdUPxnTHbg  It's free. 

My new book: "The governor you don't know: What every Illinoisan should know."

 Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker represents just about everything that nudged me out of the liberal Democrat fold. I was a John F. Kennedy Democrat and I voted for every Democratic presidential candidate from Lyndon B. Johnson through Michael Dukakis. That includes George McGovern, who then was as far left as the Democrat Party would go (but not Americans as he lost every state except one).

But I realized that there was a growing difference between the party and me. It was a rift that turned into a yawning gap. It wasn't so much that I had changed, but that the party was moving away from me until I was utterly abandoned.

Here's an example of how it happened. When the HIV/AIDS epidemic broke out in the mid-1980s, the widely accepted public health measure to combat the disease was contact tracing. I wrote a Sun-Times column supporting the science, but not only did liberals disagree, they accused me of being homophobic. 

Why? The liberal agenda abruptly changed, so far to the left that it denied the science. You couldn't contract trace because it would be "embarrassing." It would needlessly exposed men who hadn't come out of the closet to discrimination. It would discourage gay men from getting tested. Laws were passed by pseudo-liberals to "protect' the identity of gay men. In Illinois, the long-established rule that required a blood test before marriage was abolished. And if you can believe this: One reason to end the required blood tests because "too many" people were getting married outside of Illinois to avoid getting the test. (Just think of the business the state was losing!)

Meanwhile, the disease spread to others: women and their newborns. Seriously ill patients who were infected from infected donated blood. So many of those who died from what was considered to be a death sentence. Effective treatments were eventually developed, but even without them, liberals and Democrats early on believed that it was better that people would die instead of properly following the science.

The liberal/progressive/Democrat left ironically have raised the anti-science banner against anyone who disagreed, even on legitimate scientific grounds, with the favored "remedies" to fight the Covid-19 pandemic. In truth, liberals/progressives/Democrats were the first to so crassly exploit science to run things. Trouble is, hardly anyone remembers. 

So, read my book to understand my loathing of Pritzker and the progressive agenda and why they have betrayed my liberal values.

The book is free. If you haven't received one in the mail, you can find it at pritzkerbook.com where you can download a PDF or audio version. Thank you for reading.

A "journalist" explains why reporting "both sides is "dangerous" for democracy. Seriously.

Shame on you if you believe that journalists should report both sides of a political issue. That's because journalists are supposed to protect you from stuff you don't need or shouldn't know by not reporting the bad stuff.

That's the premise from the exulted heights of the Poynter Institute, a self-appointed guardian of truth and beauty. You'll find that's the highlighted opinion by its chief media critic, one Tom Jones under the headline: "CNN 'hewing toward the center' is not necessarily good for our democracy." He wrote:

"Pushing for fairness and completeness in journalism as well as fewer “hot takes” is never a bad idea. But that’s not the same as making sure you present both sides. Sometimes, the other side shouldn’t be given a voice, particularly if that side’s argument is based on lies or pushes harmful agendas." 

Jones wrote that as a tsk-tsk he awarded to for a Chicago Tribune editorial that boldly violated the wisdom currently infecting "journalism" as practiced by today's media: "CNN is hewing toward the center? That's good for our democracy."

Indeed it is. After echoing MSNBC's liberal bias for years, the new CNN boss thought it was a good idea just to present the news instead of slanting it. That leaves MSNBC and FoxNews to clearly represent the opposing ideologies. That's a reflection of 18th and 19th century American newspapers that were openly partisan. You'd read the paper that best represents your views and basically ignore the other side. Eventually the racket became a profession as it adopted the principle that you should report both side or, more realistically, all sides.

So, now we have returned to the old, discredited "journalism" of reporting only one side. When I broke into the field decades ago, it was acknowledged that there is a certain degree of subjectivity is selecting what should be included in the story. Especially if it was a short story of just a few hundreds words. The decision wasn't based on the reporter's biases, but on the idea that readers are justified to demand reading all sides. 

Now the "journalist's" decision is based only on what he believes is the "truth." (How odd, when a liberal principle has been there's no objective truth.) 

So, according to Jones' dictates, here's how I should report his view of journalism: Not at all.  It must be so, because I haver determine that he's passing out "misinformation" or "disinformation." You the reader must be protected from his erroneous beliefs. They must not see the light of day. They must not be allowed to show up on social media. 

He'll no doubt reply that his view is the truth and mine is not. Except in my perspective, my view is the truth and not his.  Here's a lesson:: So much of the reporting on the cause and effects of the Covid-19 pandemic were wrong. Does that mean that they shouldn't have been reported? Shouldn't the media have been more diligent in reporting the "truth" about shutting down classrooms instead of allowing themselves to be the voice of the "wrong" side? 

At best, this leads to a stand-off in which some readers are denied the entire story. Well, here's another truth: poorly informed citizens of the wide range of views among all Americans isn't good for democracy. Even if some of those views are harebrained. 

With all the woke/liberal/progressive/Democratic rhetoric about how democracy is in danger these days, perhaps they'd do us all a service and strengthen democracy by climbing down from their exulted throne and finally listen with a curious, patient and open mind to the rest of us. 

Where have all the hurricanes gone?

 

Wasn't this hurricane season supposed to be among the worst because of global warming, oops, I mean  (in accordance with woke high priests) climate change?

In Florida, we're still waiting. I've probably jinxed it; one might be arriving shortly. The first one now is hitting Puerto Rico. It was a category one, now category 3--much less destructive than the category 5 storms that cause the most damage.

Aside from this late arrival, this was supposed to be a continuation of the growing number of hurricanes, as predicted by, well, you know whom--the usual chicken littles. Here, for example is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, an arm of the Commerce Department, which under the Biden administration is an arm of Susan Rice and other puppeteers:

Forecasters at NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center, a division of the National Weather Service, are predicting above-average hurricane activity this year — which would make it the seventh consecutive above-average hurricane season. NOAA’s outlook for the 2022 Atlantic hurricane season, which extends from June 1 to November 30, predicts a 65% chance of an above-normal season, a 25% chance of a near-normal season and a 10% chance of a below-normal season. [Emphasis added.]

Guess we beat the odds. As even NPR--the taxpayer funded arm of climate change hysterics-- reported about the slow-starting hurricane season: "This is quite unusual and is the first time that has occurred since 1997, and is only the third time that has happened since 1950." 

But, oh dear, things still can get horrible,  NOAA still expects above normal Atlantic hurricane season.  (Updated today.) And every admission that somehow the hurricane season got off to a slow start comes with a warning that things could get a lot worse, Just one category 5 hurricane could make for a historic season, don't ya know. 

Maybe so. But I'm waiting to hear the "experts" tell us that climate change explains all this. If there's flooding, blame climate change, If there's a drought, blame climate change. Well, here's a flash: The climate's always changing from the first appearance of climate. We're in a warming cycle, but if were in a cooling cycle, the same experts would be warning that Chicago will get buried by a mile-high glacier, like it once was not too long ago in Earth age.

Yet, the media, notoriously ignorant about real science, keep suggesting that a single event is sure proof that man-made warming is real. (Never mind that the public health experts junked their expertise by inaccurately, whether by design or incompetence, giving dangerous and wrong advice about snuffing out the Covid-19 pandemic.)

As the New York Times reported about the storm surge in Alaska:

Brian Brettschneider, a climatologist based in Anchorage, said global warming had likely contributed to the severity of the storm. The explosive development of storms this far north is atypical, he said, because water temperatures are normally too cold to allow tropical cyclones to form.“There’s a strong argument to be made that climate change tipped the scales to favor this storm,” he said. [Emphasis added.]

Of course.  

NOAA continues to document how the climate is changing, how sea ice is melting and how carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are rising, as it should. And I'm not going to be guilty of denying that the climate is changing because of a one-off event, as do so many media . 

But there's this; Can mankind really control the climate? Do you think that we can turn the climate stable, forever unchanged to suit our perceived needs? Is not it arrogant to argue that, at least at this point, that we can turn the climate into our handmaid, as if we had a thermostat that we can turn up or down? Can we be certain that every climate variable, known and yet to be known, is correct and accounted for in the climate models upon which so much of the predictions of disaster based?

There's no such thing as "settled science" as Al Gore and his doomsayer acolytes have said about climate change. Instead, climate change, just like the pandemic, has become politicized to serve the purpose of someone or something. 

So, let's truly "follow the scene" instead of corrupting it. 

 

Joe Biden is angry as hell and he won't take it anymore

Wow, that was some speech that President Joe Biden gave in which he compared "MAGA" Republicans to, well, just about anything despicable. After it was promised that this would be a unifying speech on the "battle for the soul of the nation."

Instead it was designed to give Democrats what they really wanted from Biden: Blood red meat passionately denouncing Republicans as threats to democracy and worthy of, I guess, knee capping. Hip hurray! That, along with abortion, should give  Democrats the power to stem the expected Red Tide and make a better showing in the mid-term elections. 

Well, I'm not taking it anymore either. I'll stamp my feet and give Biden my middle finger because he has accused, in a remarkable new way,  tens of millions of Republican voters of asasulting democracy by, gasp, having voted for Donald Trump. 

Attacking voters seems to be the new and goofy Democratic strategy for "bringing folks together." Take Charlie [Bend with the Wind] Crist, the one-tine Republican, one-time independent and now a Democrat running for Florida governor against Ron DeSantis. Cris told a reporter, "Those who support DeSantis should stay with him and vote for him. And. I. Don't. Want. Your. vote! If you have that hate in your heart, keep it there!"

Not that Trump also didn't hurl insults at his opponents. But I don't recall Trump or anyone else of either party telling people to vote for the other guy because he is so rotten to the core. Just like you are. Biden's and Cris' hatred for the opposition speaks volumes about their superior and insufferable self-regard. 

How the hell do either of the two know what's in the hearts of their political opposition. Painting the 74 million who voted for Trump with too-broad of a brush. It's ignorant and stupid.

There I'm speaking of those two and not all their supporters. I only wish that they would extend to Trump supporters the respect that every American citizen deserves. Instead some Democrats, like Hillary Clinton who called her opposition a "basket of deplorables" comprised of homophobes and other creeps. Ignorant shit-kickers who lack the sophistication and smarts of the elite progressives.

The saddest thing of all about Biden's speech is that he missed a monumental opportunity to enter the history books. Imagine if instead slandering his opponents, he actually lead Americans out of the swamp. Suppose he instead shocked the nation with these words:

In the spirit of working together, I will visit the southern border and see for myself the humanitarian crisis that our broken immigration laws have created. 

I will not ignore the plight of freedom-seeking people who drown trying to cross the Rio Grande. I'll talk to the unaccompanied children who face the terror of landing in a strange new land where people don't speak their languages. I'll check out the arrangements to temporarily house them. Little girls who are raped or sold as sex slaves will receive comfort and justice. I'll evaluate the steps that law enforcement is taking to stem the tide of fentanyl that is killing Americans.

 I'll meet with locals--Texans, mayors, property owners, churches, social services agencies--to see for myself the burdens and costs of trying to accommodate uninvited strangers. To see the strains on their resources. I'll try to get a handle on where these immigrants are heading and settling.

And I will recognize  that allowing millions of people to illegally sneak in a back door is terribly unfair to people who legally seek entry to America.

Everyone agrees that our immigration laws are broken. They are a confusing maze. I'll bet that only a handful of people watching my speech can accurately echo what the laws say in detail. They need to be simplified, based on the principle that America is indeed the open door to liberty.

My hope is that the visit will become a foundation for legislation that I will soon send to Congress to address the crisis on the border and to straighten out the hodgepodge of laws now on the books. It will contain items that both sides want, but not ones that fail to serve our national interest. We'll take another look at finishing The Wall and providing a path for those who have crossed illegally so they still can enjoy the fruits of our freedoms.

Some will say this is an impossible task. We will try because as hard as it will be, it is possible--if we acknowledge that there  people of good will on both sides. That we return to the principle that makes democracy work--the need for compromise, respect and mutual understanding.

My fellow Americans let us begin this work now.

If he had taken such a brave stand, he would be a statesman, a hero. He could have been a contender. Both sides will lose some of their base if Biden acts a true leader and others join the effort. But such  stunning might even be politically advantageous.It would prop up an unpopular president.  

Pie-in-the-Sky? Won't happen, ever? Especially before an election when both sides as digging with their unmoving demands. 

What we now know with unprecedented clarity that if we don't, democracy indeed will die. 

Donald Trump plunges deeper into lunacy

Even for ex-president Donald Trump, this was so extraordinary that no one probably even thought about doing it.

As a "remedy" for the "stolen" presidential election, he called for a reboot. He tweeted (the caps and the puzzling quotation marks, are his):

Now it comes out, conclusively, that the FBI BURIED THE HUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP STORY BEFORE THE ELECTION, knowing that if they didn't, "Trump would have easily won the 2020 Presidential election." This is massive FRAUD & ELECTION INTERFERENCE at a level never seen before in our Country. REMEDY: Declare the rightful winner [him, of course] or, and this would be the minimal solution, declare the 2020 Election irreparably compromised and have a new Election immediately.

Huh? What?!

Err...There's a small matter of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, that prescribes in detail how the election is run. Never mind that it says the president shall be elected for a term of four years, along with the vice president.

Certain questions immediately spring to mind:

How the hell is this supposed to work? Who has the power to declare the prior election to be null and void? Who has the power to order an immediate new election? President Joe Biden? Or maybe the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who will stage a coup with a go-along military?

How do you get past the little something in the Constitution that is so clear and present that it can be altered, changed or overridden without the prescribed procedure for its amendment? Certainly there'd be a lawsuit that any federal judge, who hasn't lost his mind, would rule against the very idea at the immediate outset. Without even getting close to the Supreme Court hearing the case.

Can individual states--the Blue ones--opt out of a new election? Would it set off a civil war with the National Guards of Blue and Red states in combat? 

Would Mike Pence--the guy who Trump loathes because the vice president refused to illegally overturn the election on Jan. 6th--be allowed to share the ticket with Trump? Or would Trump get to pick a new vice presidential candidate? What idiot would want to run with such a crazy man?

Aside from the legal absurdity of such an idea, there are the logistics. Who establishes the rules for how to proceed with a new election and how would such a complex and costly process be carried out?

My God, the idea of an unconstitutional, unreal and illegal coup is so absurd and frightening that it could only spring from a disturbed mind. From an egomaniac who thinks that the entire country is so in love with him that they'd junk the Constitution. Mind you, Trump claims to represent the GOP, a party whose heart and soul is allegiance to the sanctity of the Constitution. 

Maybe Trump was joking. Maybe it was a "trial balloon" that has all the buoyancy of a led ballon. 

Whatever. This peek into the troubled mind of Trump should scare the hell out of anyone, I mean even those who can look beyond his personal faults or his successful policies and who think he should return to the Oval Office. 

Once again, Trump has irrefutably demonstrated that he should never again be allowed even close to the White House. 

Illegal immigrants arrive in Chicago; Mayor Lightfoot says bring them on.

As if Chicago, a city already circling the drain, could afford to feed, house, educate and care for them entirely on the taxpayer's dime. And Gov. Prtizker also threw out the welcome mat--no problem--because the state, flush with pandemic "emergency" cash can afford anything and everything.

A Lightfoot spokesman said the city "will respond with essential services while these individuals navigate the next steps of their journey and our community partners have been working diligently to provide a safety net.” Lightfoot added that it's a problem created by "the prior administration."

A Pritzker spokesperson promised  "health care screenings, the offer of COVID-19 vaccines and emergency housing, along with additional legal resettlement assistance.” 

Naturally, Chicago is a "sanctuary city" so to be consistent, Lightfoot had no choice but to be welcoming. Her response is distinctly different than mayors of Washington D.C and New York, who squealed about how unfair it was to drop this problem on their doorsteps.

A response:

1. The problem wasn't created by the "prior administration." Only someone so blinded by ideology or partisanship can fail to recognize the million-yes more than a million--illegal immigrants have "walked" across the southern border. The daily coverage of the hundreds and thousands of people wading across the Rio Grande River and walking into America is documented by Fox News. Of course, you can't believe anything Fox News reports. They've paid all those people every day to stage a walk on.

2. The burdens being imposed on northern, Democratic sanctuary cities is nothing compared to what border cities, states and towns must pay. No southern, red state escapes the arriving buses and charter flights arriving in the dark of night.

Of course, Lightfoot has nothing to say about the deadly Fentanyl from China being smuggled across the border by the Mexican drug cartels and the number of Chicagoans are killed. Not that the city is counting.

The hundreds, if not the thousands, of illegal immigrants have drowned, died of thirst in the desert, raped, sex trafficked and traumatized children have been the direct result of the Biden administration.Yet the administration claims that the border is "closed." 

President Joe Biden and his administration are stupid enough to believe that Americans are stupid enough to accept apolicy that ignores the onslaught on the southern border. 

Meanwhile, as the New York Times reported: "Nine migrants drown as dozens are set down Rio Grande: A large group attempting to cross into Texas was overcome by a fast-moving current, the authorities said."

The Democrats sell themselves as the party of compassion. How compassionate is it to stand by while your policies are killing people?

This is the Barbershop's new location, for now anyway.

The Tribune has shut down ChicagoNow and thus blacking out my Barbershop and many other blogs. It was done without notificatioin and everyone on there no longer can access their archives, mailing list and posting dashboard. Please earmark this page because this will serve as my temporary blog until I can figure out what to do.

Judging The Judge in the Cop Beating Case

By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Daily Observer

For more than 20 years as a columnist, I’ve kept my mouth shut whenever a judge or a jury makes a decision that I don’t believe is right. Even when every opinionizer in the country was fuming over the jury’s acquittal of O.J. Simpson of murder charges, I didn’t write in disagreement, although I was mightily shocked.

The reason is that I wasn’t in the courtroom, hearing all the facts and law. I wasn’t in the jury room, listening to peers shift through the evidence. Second guessing the justice system is a dangerous sport, weakening our respect for the law and criminal proceedings.

This self-imposed silence on my part is now challenged by one Cook County Circuit Judge John J. Fleming, who sentenced a big cop to two years probation for beating up a tiny woman bartender, as shown on a security camera tape that circulated digitally around the world. The 250-pound cop, Anthony Abbate, also was ordered to perform 130 hours of community service at a homeless shelter, attend anger management classes, observe a strict 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew during the probation period and undergo drug and alcohol evaluations.

Read more in The Chicago Daily Observer

Chicago Olympics bid team to hold secret meetings with aldermen

At every turn, Mayor Richard M. Daley, Pat Ryan and the Chicago Silly Council make themselves look ever more like dunces. Now comes word that Ryan's Chicago 2016 Olympic committee is meeting in secret with aldermen to brief them on a controversial move by Daley to secure the Olympics for Chicago in 2016.

The committee is trying to respond to the spreading public beef that followed Daley giving in to the International Olympic Committee by saying that he would sign a contract that requires the city to make up for any losses suffered by the Games if they are held in Chicago. Daley and Ryan said not to worry; the "private sector" would cover the losses by taking out a big, $500 million insurance policy.

These guys think that a series of secret meetings with aldermen are going to quell the growing public alarm over what Daley is getting us into?

Hal Turner's right to speak ends with death threats

This week's arrest of Hal Turner, a white supremacist, for threatening to murder three federal appeals court judges in Chicago is expected to set off the usual hand wringing among bloggers about threats to free speech.

Bunk.

He used his web site to call for the killing of three federal judges in Chicago. The Chicago Breaking News Center reported that the U.S. Attorney here accused Turner of posting the judge's names, photos and addresses, with such statements as "Let me be the first to say this plainly; These judges deserve to be killed." Their offense? They upheld ordinances banning handguns in Chicago and Oak Park.

Hunter's previous brush with the law over using such language on his site has set him chattering about the need to protect his "right to free speech." He screeched:

How would this affect you? Simple: People you never met, in places you've never been, can take offense to something you write on the Internet and have you jailed in THEIR state for it! Do you see the risk now? Do you understand how important this case is going to be?

The case in question then involved criminal charges against him filed by Connecticut for couple of weeks ago for "incitement to harm persons or property," a felony for which he could get one to ten years in prison. It stemmed from a posting a few weeks ago from his blog in his New Jersey home, in which he called Connecticut officials "tyrannical" and said citizens should "take up arms to put down this tyranny."

Not quite as bad as calling down a death sentence on three federal judges and helping violent nuts locate them; perhaps it might more properly fall under the classification as sedition, a word that hasn't been heard in these parts for years.

Well-established case law holds that the right of free speech, just as every other right such as bearing arms, is not absolute or unlimited. (The right to abortion is just about the only one that some would have us believe doesn't need to be balanced with any other persons' rights, but that's another story.)

Turner's blog proclaims "Free Speech: No Matter who Doesn't Like It!" He and his supporters will break out the heavy rhetoric about some fanciful government conspiracy to yank away our fundamental rights, such as free speech. Internet purists will claim that any restrictions on what is said digitally is entitled to special protections.

Maybe, as the Internet moves out of its adolescence and into adulthood, we'll understand and acknowledge that the Internet is just another form of communication that merits no special exemptions to law and decency.

How many helicopters will $13 BILLION buy you?

What's this, $13 billion to build new helicopters for President Barack Obama? That's $13 billion with a "b," putting the production of a handful of choppers to fly around the president in the same category as the entire expansion of O'Hare International Airport.

Is Obama out of his mind?

He might be, but you can't pin this gawker on him. Obama doesn't want the new helicopters and his Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has ordered the purchases terminated.

But Congress, bless its conniving soul, is gearing up to spend the money anyway. Why? The usual reason: pork. It's a case history of just how difficult it is to kill the pig, despite soaring promises of change in the way Washington does business.

In comparison, it makes Illinois' own prime cut of pork, FutureGen -- the $1 billion in federal magnanimity for an experimental Downstate power plant that hopes to burn coal cleanly -- look like pig's knuckles.

The VH-71 presidential helicopter program would buy 23 new Marine One-type helicopters, but it's six years behind schedule and costs are soaring.

But, say its backers, canceling the program now and reactivating it later to replace the aging helicopter fleet could amount to $17 billion. Some suggest that the best alternative is to pare down the order to 13 helicopters, thus saving . . . oh, what does it matter; it'll cost us billions any way you cut it.

So, what is Congress doing in the face of this conundrum? Being two-faced as usual. About a week ago, the House Armed Services Committee approved the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill, tucking away in it a mealy-mouthed VH-71 proviso. It approved the Obama administration's request for $84 million to shut down the program, but directed the start of design work on a new presidential helicopter, to be called VXX. Then it released a report accompanying the bill that "strongly suggests" that the administration buy a few more VH-71s than the five that already have been built. "The committee notes," the report went on, "that this approach will leverage the investment already made by the taxpayer in developing a helicopter that would meet all normal requirements of the president."

Congressional Quarterly reported that the language was inserted into the report at the behest of Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett (R-Md.). High on the list of donors to Bartlett's political campaign is Lockheed Martin Corp., the main contractor for the VH-71. Bartlett told CQ he doesn't know who his donors are, and that he's not acting on behalf of the company. Uh huh.

Also, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) has asked the Senate Appropriations Committee to continue the VH-71 program, citing the money that has already been spent. Lockheed Martin's plant in Owego, N.Y., is the main beneficiary of the contract and if the program is scratched more than 700 jobs could be lost in upstate New York. Only a few months ago, Gillibrand replaced Hillary Clinton as one of New York's U.S. senators and apparently has quickly caught on to how the game is played.

Not that Illinois is pure in that regard. In terms of cash, Illinois' FutureGen project doesn't compare, but in chutzpah, it comes close. The project, located in Downstate Mattoon, had been initiated and then, citing cost overruns, was canceled by President George W. Bush. Perhaps because of the Bush connection, a Democratic House staff committee report took the opportunity to bash the former president, calling the project "nothing more than a public relations ploy." Environmentalists have denounced it, arguing that "dirty coal" is and always will be dirty. Yet, here come Obama and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), reviving the project for their home state, mindful of the jobs and contracts it will bring and the tens of billions of tons of coal buried in Illinois, waiting to be scooped up and burned.

Ah yes, change we can believe in.

Daley’s Costly Genuflection to The Olympic Overseers

By Dennis Byrne

Is the International Olympic Committee so stupid that it is willing to accept the word of a mayor of a near-bankrupt city that it will cover any of the Games’ huge losses if it comes to Chicago?

Is the committee stupid enough to believe that Daley is a king and can commit Chicago to paying hundreds of millions of dollars all by himself?

Of all the stupid things that the committee has done to the Games (such as cheapening them by letting in professional athletes), this has to rank right up there with the worst. Daley, in a reversal, said he now will sign the standard contract that puts Chicago (and, practically speaking) Illinois on the hook for $500 million or more if the 2016 Games here are a bust.

Not to worry, Daley still insists, the private group that is pushing the games will take out extra insurance to cover that half-billion-dollars if something goes wrong. To which I say: then let the local 2016 committee, headed by Patrick Ryan, sign the damn thing....

Read more in The Chicago Daily Observer

Senator questions firing of 3 inspectors general by Obama administration

Barack Obama brings more of the Chicago Way to the White House: Three inspectors general are gone. Why? Don't we deserve an honest answer?

Read about it in the Chicago Tribune

Bush takes swipes at Obama policies

Fair is fair. No president other than Barack Obama in my memory has spent so much time thumping his predecessor. Through it all, George W. Bush kept his peace. But now, he has responded, as he should. He reminds us, for example:

[Bush] said his administration sought to address the "housing bubble" before the system broke down. "We tried to reform" mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, "but couldn't get it through the vested interests on Capitol Hill."

That's restraint. He could have correctly dumped the problem at the feet of Democrats such as Rep. Barney Frank.

The story is here.