Offensive Email sent by IL County GOP Chair, Apologizes

“Miss Queen is being used like a street walker and her pimps are the Democrat Party and RINO Republicans.”


This is just a portion of an email sent by Montgomery County GOP Chairman Jim Allen to Republican News Watch Editor Doug Ibendahl about GOP primary challenger Erika Harold facing incumbent Congressman Rodney Davis.


The email was in response to an article written by Doug Ibendahl regarding the primary battle in the 13th congressional district where Erika Harold, a black woman who won the 2003 Miss America title and worked at a law firm in Chicago, jumped in the race against the freshman Republican Rodney Davis. Jim Allen, who was until recently, a member of “Rodney Davis 2014″, a group working to re-elect and retain Congressman Davis, launched verbal bombs towards Erika Harold with offensive and sexist language.


In this email, Allen spelled Chicago (the city where Harold worked at a law firm) in an extremely derogatory manner referring to it as a fecal city, and that after Harold loses, she would be “working for some law firm that needs to meet their quota for minority hires.” Allen also called Harold the “love child” of the Democrat National Committee, comparing both Harold and Nancy Pelosi as “former queens, their crowns are tarnished and time has run out”. He even insulted her statements promoting abstinence and claims her winning the crown was due to be being bullied.


Jim Allen has since apologized for his statements, for what he called very inappropriate and wrong, and apologized to both Harold and her campaign supporters. No doubt that was the right thing to do, but Allen is not off the hook. His comments were incredibly reckless, disturbingly offensive, and that damage not only the image of the Republican Party in Montgomery County, but the state as well. The Republicans of Montgomery County can not and should not have a chairman who makes such a poor decision to write up and send an angry email filled with remarks disparaging someone’s race and gender.


As a GOP precinct committeeman as well, words like this only further the false stereotype that the Republican Party is “anti-minority” or “anti-women”. The county and state party as of now is on damage control, and as long as Jim Allen remains the GOP Chairman of Montgomery County, Democrats will use this in commercials, literature and other forms of attack ads against Republican candidates.


Who Jim Allen supports in this race makes zero difference, in such a leadership and figurehead role of a county party, an apology for writing such an angry piece offending so many people is not enough. We believe Montgomery County GOP Chairman Jim Allen must resign in the best interests for the Republican Party.



Demetri Broches
Vice President, Illinois Conservatives



Link to Ibendahl’s article with Allen’s email message:


The Wussificaton of our Kids…in Effingham?!

We’ve heard the stories from other school districts – no Musical Chairs, no Duck Duck Goose, no Tag, etc. Why? Because these games are inherently unfair or somebody might feel left out.

I live in one of the most conservative areas in Illinois – Effingham County. Fox News once said that Effingham County is the “base of the base of the Illinois Republican Party”. So you can imagine my surprise when I heard what took place at Effingham Junior High School this past week.

My girlfriend’s granddaughter was running for 8th Grade class President at EJHS & therefore, there would be an election by her peers.  My future granddaughter was ready to campaign & was excited at the prospect of winning class President. She even spent her own time after school designing homemade campaign fliers.

Then she went to school.

When she went to the EJHS Office to get her fliers approved so she could hang them in the hallways, she was informed by the secretary that her campaign fliers were not going to be approved. Of course, she was upset by this because she had spent so much time making her posters.

When she got home, her mother called the school to find out why her daughter’s homemade campaign fliers were not approved. The answer? “Because it would make it unfair for the other candidates”. She was also informed that all campaign posters are supposed to be done using computers to make it fair.

Two problems.

First, isn’t making students do the work on computers inherently unfair? Not every student has a computer at home & if they do the work at school not every student has the same computer & creative skills to make a campaign poster that would look like everyone else.

Second, what is more inherently unfair than elections, whether in life or in school? Somebody has to lose & somebody has to win. In life, some candidates have a bunch of money, others do not. Some candidates have a grassroots effort in place & others do not. So why make elections fair in school? What possible lesson can you teach a kid if you level the playing field for a school election?!

Life is unfair & life’s outcomes are unfair. Yet our schools are teaching our kids that life IS fair & outcomes should be as fair as possible. That’s not how society works. That’s not how our economy works. That’s not how the workplace works. And it sure isn’t how elections work.

I’m ecstatic that my future granddaughter won her election but the ends don’t justify the means. She should have been able to campaign as she saw fit within normal school rules. The same goes for the other kids who ran for school office.

Why get bent out of shape over such a trivial thing when she won? Because “rules” like this are wussifying our kids to the reality of life & cuts down on any creativity or imagination they might have – the later an important skill to have in the workplace. This time it’ll be making school elections fair. Next time it’ll be getting rid of games that produce a clear winner & loser. Then it’ll be nobody gets an F on anything. Slippery slope my friends. Always, always be mindful of the future.

gen shi labs levitra fiyat

Chinese Internet Regulation Reminds of SOPA, PIPA

WACO, Tex., April 15, 2013 – Last week, the Economist featured a “special report” on internet freedom in China, bringing to mind the unprecedented public reaction to the introductions of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA) debates in late 2011 and early 2012. Though the bills were notably over-hyped by critics, the reaction reflects the different views between the American and Chinese governments on internet regulation.

When SOPA was first introduced on October 26, 2011 by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), major media companies and organizations, including the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), clamored to support the legislation. The bill, if enacted into law, would have given the government power to force Internet Service Providers (ISPs), search engines, and payment processors to block access to foreign websites “dedicated to copyright infringement.”

The MPAA cited a study analyzing the consequences of content theft or piracy, which can be as large as $58 billion in output and over 370,000 jobs. Though the accuracy of these numbers has been criticized, some make a philosophical objection as well. According to Tim O’Reilly, the founder of O’Reilly Media and a consistent supporter of open-source movements, “The losses due to piracy are far outweighed by the benefits of the free flow of information, which makes the world richer, and develops new markets for legitimate content.”

O’Reilly makes a good point. Though most Americans can agree piracy at some level is unfair to artists and content-producers, regulating the Internet can begin a slippery slope toward the erosion of free speech.

Once petitions were circulated, millions of Tweets were sent, and Wikipedia engaged a “black-out” to oppose the new laws, the government quickly stepped back and gave in to the public’s demands.

China, on the other hand, has shown no qualms about regulating which websites its citizens can access. The Economist concludes, ”[The Chinese government] has shown great skill in bending the technology to its own purposes, enabling it to exercise better control of its own society and setting an example for other repressive regimes.”

In fact, many American media companies now consult Chinese censors or allow them on movie sets to approve scripts before the movie’s release in order to guarantee approval in Chinese theaters.

China immediately blocked sites such as Facebook and Twitter when they were released, wary of the danger information-sharing could pose to the government-controlled narrative. However, Chinese “micro-bloggers,” taking advantage of a service called Weibo, have made great gains in persuading the government to allow domestic Internet companies some freedom.

Though critical messages about government officials are quickly deleted, the micro-blogs have been able to achieve influence in crucial moments. When a high-speed train crash killed 40 people, word spread so quickly via Weibo that the authoritarian government had no choice but to take action and replace the railway officials responsible.

Micro-bloggers realize, however, that to avoid being blocked altogether, they must consent to some censorship measures. It’s a constant struggle of negotiation and deal-making. Says one web-editor of the micro-blogging platform Tencent (speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of repercussions), “If we did not have any free speech then this company would not have any influence, so the company must act proactively to safeguard our space. So that’s why they must go through this process of bargaining with the government departments.”

It is heartening that both American and Chinese citizens have recognized the importance of free speech, even while their governments have not. The future shows great promise for improving Internet freedom.

By: Danny Huizinga

Danny Huizinga is currently studying at Baylor University, pursuing three business majors in Economics, Finance, and Business Fellows with minors in mathematics and political science. Although originally from the Chicago area, he is a Texas resident.”
Article can also be found on the Washington Times

American Resolve


Today, America was terrorized with attack leading to the end of several lives and over a hundred injured so far reported. Although it isn’t entirely clear who was behind this attack, what is known in the coming days and weeks fingers will be pointed in every direction. Already a CNN contributor has blamed “right wing extremists” being behind the attack. Here at Illinois Conservatives, it will not matter if the perpetrator is a Republican, a Democrat, a Muslim, a Christian, an American Citizen, or a foreign national, or anyone else. What matters is that . What is known is that this person and his/her actions have no place here in America, and what matters is that justice will and should be the result. This person came with the goal of changing the day to day lives of Americans, and that will not happen. During the toughest of times and the darkest of moments Americans have showed that they will help one another. After the attacks today it was widely reported that Boston Marathon runners continued to run past the finish line after the attacks all the way to a local hospital to donate blood. The quote of the day goes to District Attorney Dan Conley “Seconds after those bombs went off, we saw civilians running to help the victims right along side members of the Boston Police Department and Boston EMS. And in the hours that followed, police and medical personnel from across the region have sent dozens, maybe even hundreds, of volunteers to help us here in Boston. That’s what Americans do in times of crisis; we come together and we help one another. Moments like these, terrible as they are, don’t show our weakness. They show our strength.”

Together, America is always strongest. The best way to show that these attacks only made America stronger is to come together, pray, and to fly your Stars and Stripes tomorrow.

hgh vs testosterone turkish pharmacies

NEA hinders education reform

WASHINGTON, March 25, 2013 ― Education reform may be one of the few political issues that has bipartisan support. In spite of that, attempted solutions to our failing educational system have failed so far to achieve encouraging results.

Especially alarming is the fact that increased funding seems to have no effect on solving the problem. Since 1960, real (inflation-adjusted) education spending per student has more than tripled. However, test scores and graduation rates have not seen any improvement.

The award-winning documentary, “Waiting for Superman,” persuasively argues for much-needed reform in America’s education system. By following the stories of five children who are looking for better school opportunities, the movie demonstrates the many flaws with the current system.

The movie describes a “dance of the lemons,” in which bad teachers are shuffled from school to school because they cannot be fired. Good teachers are of paramount importance, the movie argues. Whereas good teachers can often cover as much as 150 percent of the required curriculum, bad teachers can cover as little as 50 percent.

Why do we not distinguish between good and bad teachers? Because, until recently, almost all attempts at merit pay (teachers’ salaries based on performance rather than years teaching) have been rebuffed by the two largest teachers’ unions, the National Education Association (NEA) and American Federation of Teachers (AFT).

Last November, New Jersey governor Chris Christie compromised with the AFT to implement a merit pay plan for Newark’s teachers. The plan marks a sudden change in the traditional conflict over this issue. Despite the AFT’s willingness to compromise, however, the NEA continues to oppose the merit pay measures.

The NEA also opposes any measures offering “vouchers” for school choice to parents. Dr. Michael Q. McShane, research fellow in education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, argues, ”Teachers’ unions fear vouchers, as students choosing to attend private schools cut into their market share and curtail the primary source of their revenue and political power, the dues of their unionized members.

Although unions can sometimes serve a valuable purpose, many argue the NEA has overstepped its boundaries. The NEA consistently supports and articulates pro-choice and pro-gay marriage positions, inviting criticism that these issues are irrelevant to helping teachers improveeducation.

Teachers who do not wish to join or support the union often have no choice, facing possible termination if they do not pay union dues. The NEA needs this revenue in order to maintain their place as the highest campaign contributor. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the NEA spent $56.3 million in the 2008 election cycle. Though corporations are often criticized for their alleged spending power, the NEA spent more than ExxonMobil, Microsoft, Walmart, and the AFL-CIO combined.

Even statements from the organization itself offer a jarring truth:

“Why is the NEA an effective advocate? Despite what some among us would like to believe it is not because of our creative ideas; it is not because of the merit of our positions; it is not because we care about children; and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child.

“The NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power.”

As long as the NEA continues to oppose these school reform measures and stand in the way of new ideas, American schools will still be “waiting for Superman.”


By: Danny Huizinga

Danny Huizinga is currently studying at Baylor University, pursuing three business majors in Economics, Finance, and Business Fellows with minors in mathematics and political science. Although originally from the Chicago area, he is a Texas resident.”
Article can also be found on the Washington Times

Recently Downloaded Mp3s

deca durabolin uk

P.R. Director of the Illinois Conservatives.

Sarah Palin Brings Comedy to CPAC, Challenges Washington Elites

CPAC: Rand Paul and Chris Christie, opportunity and setbacks

WACO, Texas, March 4, 2013 ― In just over a week, thousands of conservatives will gather at the Gaylord National Resort Hotel and Convention Center at National Harbor in Maryland, just outside Washington. The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) moved this year to the new location to accommodate more guests after a record-breaking attendance last year.

The conference will feature most of the forerunners of the conservative movement, providing an opportunity for potential presidential nominees to test the waters. Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, and Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin look to be strong possibilities for a 2016 race.

Former contenders such as former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich of Georgia, former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry will also make appearances.

In addition, former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, after nearly four months of silence, will appear publicly for the first time since the election. Though the details of his speech are largely unknown, most speculate that Romney will not use CPAC as an opportunity to make a farewell speech. Instead, he is expected to try to re-energize the future of conservatism, though speculation abounds about how he will accomplish this task.

Romney’s speech ties in perfectly with the conference’s theme, “America’s Future: The Next Generation of Conservatives.” In the past, over 50 percent of the conference’s attendees have been under the age of 24, and discounted ticket prices for that age bracket reflect a continuing desire to attract students and young professionals. The speeches will focus on redefining the message, likely in similar terms to Sen. Ted Cruz’s message of “opportunity conservatism.” Sen. Cruz will stress similar points in his closing address at the conference.

However, the conference is not without its drama. Perhaps most notable is CPAC’s decision to not invite Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey to address the conference.

The decision to leave Christie off the speaking list was likely influenced by his perceived friendship with President Obama, in addition to his leaning left on key positions such as gun control and global warming. Although some applaud the decision, most analysts believe it was a mistake. Prominent conservative columnist, Jonah Goldberg, argues,

“The problem is that CPAC is the first bottleneck in the Republican presidential pipeline, and at precisely the moment the party should be making every effort to be — or at least seem! — as open as possible to differing points of view, it’s chosen to exclude the most popular governor in the country.”

Christie was not the only one snubbed by CPAC. Conservative gay-rights group GOProud was not invited to the conference for the second year in a row, prompting considerable outrage from both liberal and conservative columnists, especially on an issue that resonates with many young people.

Although CPAC promises to reignite the future of conservatism, the exclusions of Christie and GOProud have already caused unwanted controversy and may grow into serious obstacles to conservative success. The challenge ahead is to present strong messages that can overcome these obstacles and motivate the next generation of conservatives
By: Danny Huizinga

Danny Huizinga is currently studying at Baylor University, pursuing three business majors in Economics, Finance, and Business Fellows with minors in mathematics and political science. Although originally from the Chicago area, he is a Texas resident.”
Article can also be found on the Washington Times

Independents need to get informed

WACO, Tex., February 28, 2013 – I recently had the pleasure of seeing “Born Yesterday,” an intellectual comedy directed by Jessi Hampton at the Baylor Department of Theatre Arts. The play was originally written by Garson Kanin and first performed in 1946. Set in Washington D.C.,It follows the story of Billie Dawn, mistress of the rough junkyard tycoon, Harry Brock. She is taken advantage of by Brock’s bribery and corruption, completely unaware of the consequences of his actions.

The play documents Billie’s education in the realms of politics and history as she learns to understand Brock’s unethical actions while discovering the beauty of a democratic system. Becoming politically informed allows her to stand up against the injustice in politics.

The plot carries remarkable similarities to our political system today. The danger political ignorance poses to our society can be easily seen by recent statistics. According to George Mason historian Rick Shenkman, only two of five voters can name the three branches of the government, and 49% of Americans think the President has the right to suspend the Constitution.

Ilya Somin, professor of law at George Mason University, agrees that this political ignorance threatens our democratic system. He says, “Democracy demands an informed electorate […] Voters who lack sufficient knowledge may be manipulated by elites. They may also demand policies that contravene their own interests.”

So why not stay “independent” of politics? Many assume independents are free-thinkers, not tied to a particular partisan agenda, and generally more intellectual than those who identify as either conservative or liberal. However, this theory supposes an idealistic view of independents that starkly contradicts empirical observations.

According to a 2008 American National Election Study by the University of Michigan, independents are much less likely to follow current events, research political information, watch the news, or donate to candidates than those who report an affiliation with one political party. Most self-declared independents also confess to “leaning” toward one side or another. Those who do are almost 20% more likely to vote than “pure independents.”

Choosing a political side does not indicate a sacrifice of reason, principles, or free thinking. Party labels do not imply blind adherence to the agenda. The choice of party instead reflects a coherent set of informed decisions. Those who are not ashamed to stand behind their political convictions have already done much clear, rational analysis to decide which party or candidate best fits their views on most issues. There are still varying degrees on the left-right continuum, but a middle grounded in apathy is not the ideal place to be by any means.

According to “Born Yesterday” director Hampton, “It is harder for people to be taken advantage of, by government or anybody else, if they are well-educated, which is why Devery (a character in the play) exclaims, ‘A little education is a dangerous thing.’”

Admittedly, “Born Yesterday” takes on a slightly idealistic nature. It is naive to think that if only American citizens (especially independents) would read a little more, the problems of government would magically be wiped away. Becoming politically informed may not solve all of society’s problems, but it is a good place to start.


By: Danny Huizinga

Danny Huizinga is currently studying at Baylor University, pursuing three business majors in Economics, Finance, and Business Fellows with minors in mathematics and political science. Although originally from the Chicago area, he is a Texas resident.”
Article can also be found on the Washington Times

Would New Federal Stalking Laws Have Snared Rep. Bill Foster?

-By Warner Todd Huston

This year the Violence Against Women Act is getting some stronger penalties for stalking, assault, and other crimes. With all these new provisions, one wonders that if this law were around 15 years ago, how it would have hit good old Congressman Bill Foster, a man who is guilty of abusing his wife?

The law, called The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (S47), would most certainly have sent Foster to jail for a long time. You see the Illinois Democrat has a chequered history of violence against women.

Some of the additions to S47 include,

  • Reauthorizes VAWA formula and discretionary grants for five years; consolidates certain grants to streamline grant administration and save taxpayer money.
  • Increases the emphasis on the investigation, prosecution, and services for victims of sexual assault.
  • Increases focus on training for law enforcement and prosecutors and efforts to reduce rape kit backlogs.
  • Expands grants to tribal governments and coalitions to address violence against women on tribal land.
  • Enhances penalties for assault and improves the federal stalking statute.

The latter provision would have hit Foster particularly hard and his divorce papers prove.

As the Washington Free Beacon revealed last year, Foster has some pretty unsavory charges against him.

A March 1996 court filing contends that Foster “pushed, shoved, and caused physical abuse and emotional harm” to his then-wife, who had asked Foster repeatedly to leave the family home because his presence was “upsetting” to their two young children.

Foster’s wife’s attorney requested a temporary restraining order against Foster from “calling, harassing, or touching” his client, the records show.

Foster also tried to get the courts to force his soon to be ex from being allowed to move wherever she wanted after the divorce, even demanding that the courts “fine” her thousands, in fact $50,000, if she dared to move.

“It almost sounds, on the initial surface, as if you are holding someone hostage to stay within any school district, which is not the law of the State of Illinois,” Judge Keith Brown said during the trial in 1996.


Article was originally posted on Publius Forum


Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago based freelance writer. He has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and before that he wrote articles on U.S. history for several small American magazines. His political columns are featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart’,, as well as,,, among many, many others. Mr. Huston is also endlessly amused that one of his articles formed the basis of an article in Germany’s Der Spiegel Magazine in 2008.