Along with the link he added this comment: Let’s stick to facts folks! If you need 20 bullet clips and an assault rifle to hunt deer I feel very sorry for you and support your right to have them.

Ok, I’m game. I like a good debate, especially when I’m right.

The link and sentiment above are in response to one of the best arguments for the 2^nd Amendment in the current debate over gun control laws: Dictators and despotic governments, like Nazi Germany, use gun control as a method of controlling its citizens.

My remark to this comment was deleted by my friend and my queries have been ignored. Since I didn’t copy it, I’ll do my best to paraphrase.

I wish we could sue for literary malpractice. Not only does Mr. Seitz-Wald misinterpret the facts of history or is intentionally lying to make a point, but much of the points he uses contradict his argument. The fact that Hitler made exceptions for people in the Nazi party proves the point of the 2^nd Amendment. Mr. Seitz-Wald then cowardly uses the quotes of Omer Bartov to slander proponents of the 2^nd Amendment as violent and racist and wanting to overthrow the government. Then I looked up Alex Seitz-Wald and learned that he is an assistant editor for Think Progress, and works for the Center of American Progress. Now it all makes sense. He is just as much a proponent of gun control as the NRA is against it. This is all propaganda (name deleted). This article is no different than an NRA flier.

Like I said, my comment was removed while comments supporting my friend, or comments that he could argue against were left. Here I sit writing my blog 22 hours after asking why, and I still have no response. I won’t cry censorship, because that would be wrong. His Facebook page is his forum and he’s entitled to edit it as he chooses. Also, I have my own forum where I can express my views, so I don’t need to waste time being angry. In fact, I’m happy. I consider the removal of my comment and the silent treatment as confirmation that I won.

Since this is my forum, I want to expand on my point though. A quick quip on a social media page doesn’t do justice to the debate. Because the original intent of the 2^nd Amendment is its best argument, progressives have to shoot holes in it (pun was intentional) to get the majority of the American people to agree to compromise, and ultimately, do away with it. This is why Seitz-Wald is intentionally distorting history.

The author is distorting history when he cites the gun control laws under the Weimer Republic. The Weimer Republic was by no means a successful or model government. It was created after World War I under the terms imposed by the League of Nations. As a parallel, think of a college football program that is faced with the “death penalty” such as SMU. Germany had severe limits on its military. Germany also had severe economic penalties placed upon it. The Weimer Republic had a terrible economy which was hi-lighted (or low-lighted) by inflation so high that it took a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread. The Weimer Republic was never a bright, shining light of democracy. We shouldn’t act as if it was a conservative ideal that Hitler’s election did away with. Seitz-Wald mentions that Hitler made exceptions to the gun control laws for Nazi party members and other groups that he had favor for although he kept the restrictions for the Jewish population. Isn’t that what proponents of the 2^nd Amendment are pointing out? The Jews were the scapegoat and rallying point for the Nazis. I don’t know if I can say “DUH” any louder. Doesn’t it speak volumes that Hitler’s targets were not allowed to have guns, but his supporters were? That goes for any dictatorship we have seen in history.

Seitz-Wald then takes on the argument that even if the Jews were allowed to have guns, they wouldn’t have been able to stop the Nazis. The Jews were by no means close to being a large population within Germany. So Seitz-Wald is right; when you have the numbers that far against you, you can’t possibly win.

…but are we to believe that maybe a few couldn’t have escaped, or at the very least, it would have been so easy? Didn’t those people deserve a fighting chance?

What Alex Seitz-Wald is trying to do is give the false impression that deregulated and not regulated societies are more prone to fascism and violence. That is why he goes further to use the quotes of Omer Bartov who says:

  “Their assertion that they need these guns to protect themselves from the government — as supposedly the Jews would have done against the Hitler regime — means not only that they are innocent of any knowledge and understanding of the past, but also that they are consciously or not imbued with the type of fascist or Bolshevik thinking that they can turn against a democratically elected government, indeed turn their guns on it, just because they don’t like its policies, its ideology, or the color, race and origin of its leaders.”

This quote is meant to portray any person who wants to have a gun is out to revolt against the government, is against the Democratic Party, is against progressives, and is a racist against our Black president.” Alex, be a man and say what you mean with your own words. And shame on you saying that anyone who disagrees with you are these things.

My friend was right that when we discuss gun control we should stick to the facts. Unfortunately he erred in believing they were in this article.

Don’t change anything.

Liberals believe the answer is to restrict access to guns and ammunition. Many conservatives are wanting to have police added to schools or arm every teacher. Both sides are wrong. Both positions have unintended consequences that are far worse than the standing pat. The arguments for stricter gun control and banning certain types of weapons has been refuted previously by many. In summary, these new laws disarm the innocent and give greater advantage to those with bad intentions.

Taking a 180 degree turn is also not a good idea. If we were to place policemen in the schools, we would be providing overkill to deal with a symptom to a greater problem. It’s akin to putting make-up on every blemish, but the reality is that you still have bad skin. Some schools have security problems, but many don’t. In many places, putting cops in schools would be a waste of time and resources. If a policeman has to be put in a school when there wasn’t one before, what happens to the area he/she once patrolled? By this definition, isn’t it less safe? The natural answer to that is we need to hire more police, but where does that funding come from? For law-enforcement entities with already stressed budgets, this is the last thing they need thrown at them.

Well, let us arm the teachers you might say. Sounds good on the surface, right? Maybe, but you’d still be wrong. While I firmly believe in the Second Amendment, I don’t believe that you should put a gun in the hands of people who may not want it. Having a gun is a tremendous responsibility. If you don’t understand that responsibility, or even want it, you are asking for problems. I’m sure there are many teachers that would not mind or even welcome being able to carry a gun in the classroom. For others, it would be a terrifying proposition. Teachers already have it hard enough, do we want to place the burden of the student’s safety . . . from themselves . . . on their shoulders? Keeping control of a classroom is hard enough. Need I say more?

As I was hinting at before, gun control laws are only addressing the symptom, not the issue. The real issue in many of these massacres (I exempt Ft. Hood. That was terrorism, which none of these new gun bans even addresses.) are done by mentally ill individuals or people who are just plain bad. The real fixes are to be made in how we treat mental illness, and . . . get ready for this . . . parenting. Both are fixes that the government cannot make for us. We must do it ourselves.

Hello. My name is Ron Brzoska, and I am a precinct committeeman in Downers Grove Township. I’d like to thank the chairman and the committee for the opportunity to speak today. Instead of making comments directly to Chairman Brady, I’d like to take this opportunity to address the State Central Committee. The November elections were a disaster. They were a disaster beyond our lowest expectations. If the party were a sports franchise, we would be heading for a rebuilding year and a house cleaning. My business background makes me view the Illinois Republican Party as a business … the State Central Committee as the board of directors. As a business, the November elections have made the party a company fighting to stave off bankruptcy. When a team or a business is in such dire straights, a change in leadership is required.

I have no axe to grind. I am not a failed candidate that was slighted, or feels slighted by the party. I am here to speak on results. Not only did we fail in 2012, but we failed in 2010 as well. This isn’t about one election. This is about accountability. The Illinois GOP keeps losing and the House and Senate have already voted to keep their same failed leadership. What brought me here today, and what you are seeing in these people today, is the frustration of losing and a team that doesn’t make the changes needed to win. And if you think those of us here are frustrated, ask yourselves how the people who stayed home on election day must feel.

I don’t expect Pat Brady to resign today. If we are honest with ourselves, none of us would quit if the shoe were on the other foot. I also don’t expect you to fire him here later today, but you all need to start thinking about how you will hold the chairman and yourselves accountable. While you do that, we will be doing the same.

I entered the room pretty early and looked for a sign in sheet to sign to add my name to the list of speakers during the public comments section of the meeting. There was a table with copies of the previous meeting minutes but no sign in sheet. I asked the young man working the door about it and he had no idea. I talked to a few others and asked about a sign up list and no one was aware of one. One did surface later that was a half used notepad, but it did not seem to be used when public comments were made later anyway. It was good to see that they brought in more chairs to supplement the 25 that the room originally held. Despite this, the event was SRO.

Chairman Pat Brady spoke first. First he thanked a number of people, almost everyone he thanked…ok, everyone he thanked was thanked for their generous financial contributions to the IL GOP. He also thanked a number of the candidates that ran in the past cycle. I made special note of Brady’s praise for Rodney Davis. He called Davis “one of their own” and that he “knows what party politics is about.” Chairman Brady, WE ARE ALL YOUR OWN. Your comments about Rodney Davis are telling about your views of inclusion and what makes a “good Republican.” He then talked to a brief Powerpoint presentation showing the year in review. Like another other year in review presentation, it was made to look as positive as it could be. The presentation showed that while every candidate except Rodney Davis lost their congressional bid (Brady loves him so much that Davis got his own slide) the victory center efforts led to fewer Democratic party votes and more Republican votes in their districts. I’m personally skeptical of these graphics. Based on the percentages shown, I don’t understand how it is mathematically possible that many of these Republicans lost. The charts even showed strong numbers for Judy Biggert’s and Joe Walsh’s losses. More importantly, with the map changes, how could they make accurate comparisons between 2008 and 2012. Even precinct boundaries underwent changes.

Chairman Brady then talked about fundraising. He said that 24 million dollars was raised in Illinois for the Romney presidential campaign. and 3.2 million was raised for state races. It was divided up between large donors, small donors, and donations back from the RNC and NRCC. About 20% of the total came from small donors with the share by the other two groups nearly equal. The RNC has set a goal for Illinois that 75% of their money should come from small donors in 2014. That is a tall order.

Chairman Brady also talked about the election itself. He didn’t have anything new to add to the ongoing post mortem analysis. He then said a few things of note that I wrote down for the comedy it evoked even though he was dead serious.

• He will be working with State Senator Matt Murphy on messaging, and acknowledged that he is not the best at communicating the Republican message. Pat! You are the chairman for Christ’s sake!
• “I think we can win this governor’s race.” Oh really? I hope so.
• “If we don’t win this governor’s race in 2014, we are going to have problems.” This is why you are a failure. We have problems already. BIG PROBLEMS.

RNC Secretary and Illinois National Committeewoman Demetra Demonte then spoke. I was very pleased with what she had to say. She seems to get it. She exhibited a sense of urgency when she said that we need to start acting now. She also was the only voice amongst the leadership that sounded like she actually believed it when she said that we cannot compromise our principles. Secretary Demonte said that ”if we compromise our principles, it will lead to a third-party and Republicans will become a permanent minority.” She also said that the Republican Party needs to embrace its grass-roots which is made up of 912 groups and tea parties.

There were other speakers as well. Among them were Dan Proft, Rich Wiliamson, Jack Roeser, Michelle Sherman, and someone representing the Illinois Young Republicans. It was sad that he was bragging about there being 1,000 members nation-wide (I hope he misspoke) and that the YRs were expecting 1,500 to 2,000 for the national convention in Chicago for 2015. Maybe they couldn’t find a bar big enough for a larger group.

As I sat there, I was glad to see faces in the seats that did not look like mine. I was even gladder when I heard them speak. Two African-American candidates for the 2nd Congressional District (Dr. Eric Wallace and Lenny McCallister) made their pitches to the committee and the audience. Time will tell who will get their support.

The time for public comments was the main event. I felt a little bit for the young man who was sent to the gallery. He had a look on his face as someone who knew he was venturing into unwelcome territory. While not all of us who wished to speak got the chance (like me), there were many who did get to speak and air their grievances about the way the IL GOP has handled their responsibilities. Sherri Griffith and Lori Yokoyama, who ran on a slate in Cook County with another minority woman, talked about how the party got them to run, but did not provide financial support or even allow the use of the Victory Centers without paying out of their own pockets for their use. They both told the SCC how they could have put their money where their mouths are by supporting their election runs this last time. They warned the SCC that the IL GOP’s inaction in their cases serves as a discouragement to other non-whites who may have right political leanings. The Republican Party needs to engage in more than lip service. It needs to support all of its candidates.

I was very discouraged and saddened by the events at this portion of the meeting. There was a lot of anger and disappointment coming from the crowd, but instead of listening (like Brady said he was going to do when he talked about focus groups and meeting with other leaders) he kept interrupting and defending himself. Brady’s response to Brad Baber about rigging the convention (sorry Chairman, I was there too, and you did lie and call the vote in your favor when it should have been made a roll call vote) escalated that exchange. Chairman Brady, you had a free focus group, and instead of trying to learn from them you argued with them. That is not leadership.

What I took away from my first State Central Committee meeting… what I learned… is that my instincts were right. I want something better. Starting with the chairman…

In March of 2011 the state of Illinois passed an internet sales tax. The argument was that people were avoiding sales tax by buying on-line, and as a result, the playing field was not level for the traditional store retailers that had to charge sales tax. In the name of “fairness” this new tax was campaigned for and passed. This tax was also passed retroactively. This meant that Illinoisans were expected to bring their internet purchase receipts to the tax man so they could be in compliance. If you didn’t have receipts, then they had a solution. You just had to pay a higher percentage on your income tax to cover what that tax would likely have been.

After more than a year, the State of Illinois (predictably) believes that it is not collecting the revenues that it believes it should have received. These complaint have been heard loud and clear by Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois). Durbin, who recently said that entitlement reform and other spending cuts are off the table to avoid the fiscal cliff, found an opportunity that he cannot stop salivating over…

We should have a national internet sales tax.

…and a Merry Christmas to you too Senator Durbin.   

No. The title does not mean that I believe that Republicans should embrace the Obama “Forward” agenda. Rather, I believe that the Illinois Republican Party needs to make a bold step in order to have any future at all. The Illinois Republican Party must replace its triumvirate of leadership: House Minority Leader Tom Cross, Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno, and Chairman Pat Brady.

The results on Election Day for Illinois republicans have been termed a “bloodbath.” This true; very true. Like any sports franchise, or any company that has been beaten so badly by its competition that the status quo leaves the organization uncompetitive going forward, a change in management is necessary.

Representative Tom Cross and Senator Christine Radogno have done very little to stop the Madigan/Quinn agenda. Not only do they routinely stay silent until after the votes have taken place, but they seldom offer any type of Republican counter. Cross and agenda have not offered a vision from their caucuses that gives the Illinois voter an alternative to exansion of government and its burdens imposed by the Democrats. There is no battle cry and therefore no battle, only a rout.

Representative Tom Cross and Senator Christine Radogno have seen their caucuses shrink to ineffectual levels. The Democrats have veto-proof majorities in both houses of the General Assembly. This has reduced Illinois Republicans to a relevancy equal to the Libertarian Party or the Green Party. Our Republican legislators now are nothing more than a protest vote. But what has either Cross or Radogno done to increase the number of Republicans in the Illinois General Assembly? There were 20 state senate races with no Republican challenger. There were 39 state representative races without a Republican challenger. How do they or the party expect to reverse the tide if they don’t even try? What have they done to bring candidates in or help the ones that do run? We aren’t seeing it. Since the election the rank-and-file and precinct committeemen like myself have waited for answers. We have waited for something uplifting. We have waited for a plan. We have waited for something … anything, and received nothing.

What I have said goes double for Chairman Pat Brady. Afterall, Representative Cross and Senator Radogno have their jobs as legislators to tend to as well as being party leaders. Chairman Brady’s only job is to be the party leader. Pat Brady has presided over the failed governor’s race. Not only were Republicans unable to defeat the unpopular legacy of scandal-ridden Rod Blagojevich, Pat Quinn, but the loss allowed the Democrats to gerrymander the district maps to favor their party. This was during the 2010 election cycle that was a boon to Republicans across the country. Brady should have been replaced after that debacle. He was not, and we paid for it in 2012. The state convention was a failure. We didn’t attempt to run candidates in 59 state races. We almost ran out of money (Thank you Sandy Stuart for making that an “almost”). We lost five congressman. I can’t name one GOP success story that can be attributed to the management of Pat Brady.

When the rank-and-file consider their leaders to be losers, they tune them out. Think of Ozzie Guillen. Think of Mike Ditka. Think of the bosses that you may have had that you had no confidence in. This is where we are now. These three people must go. This is not about the direction of ideology to the left or right. This is about no longer falling backward and moving forward. Results mandate a change, not more of the same.

Illinois is a blue state. Blue is an appropriate description since we are choking to death. We did more damage to ourselves by giving the Democrats that gave us a state ranked 48th in economic performance (2010 ALEC-Laffer State Competitiveness Index) a veto-proof majority in both houses of the general assembly to go along with Governor Pat Quinn. Now Democrats don’t need help to have one-party rule.

It’s obvious from the election results is that citizens and Republicans will need to things differently. There will need to be new ideas, strategies, and leaders. I believe these things will come from outside the traditional Republican establishment. When I can, I will showcase organizations with the values that Illinois needs. What I’m doing is nothing different from outright advertising. So what? This is my blog, If you don’t like it, get your own.

The group that I am showcasing today is the Illinois Center Right Coalition. This is a statewide organization, but it’s membership is predominately from Northern Illinois. I can proudly say that I am a former member of the group and can attest to the beliefs and abilities of a number of their members. They had a meeting earlier today, which I asked for them to provide me a recap on.

“Illinois Center Right Coalition November Meeting”

Today at the meeting we heard from several guest speakers.
Terry Gavin, candidate for Elgin City Council spoke about issues facing the City of Elgin. Terry’s Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/#!/terry.gavin.3?fref=ts
Gary Percy, candidate for Dist U-46 School District spoke about his candidacy for U-46, the second largest school district in Illinois. His website is, http://wishbone59.wordpress.com
William Kelly, announced an exploratory committee for Illinois Comptroller, full release here. http://kellytruthsquad.wordpress.com/2012/11/10/kelly-announces-formation-of-exploratory-committee-for-illinois-comptroller
We also discussed several other resolutions that will be discussed by the Steering Committee and will be shared if they are approved.

Thanks
Frank Napolitano  – ICRC Chairman

There are a lot of post mortems going around today concerning what happened in yesterday’s election for president, and I’ve seen many others specific to my home state of Illinois. I’ve read a few and put a few others aside to read later as I wanted to type this blog before I was further influenced and would be incapable of distinguishing any of my original thoughts from what I have read.

To recap, as expected, Barack Obama carried the vote for president by a wide margin. The actual margin of victory fell into line with every prediction I had seen and discussed with others.  The Republicans lost all four congressional seats targeted by the Democrats. On the state level, Democrats increased their advantages to what are now veto-proof majorities in the general assembly. Democrats have now managed to get foot-holds in traditionally Republican DuPage County.

So what happened? Regardless of arguments over comparisons to 2008, the economy is terrible. We are still at war in the Middle East. Benghazi is fresh in our national memory. In Illinois, we are a national laughing-stock. The Wall Street Journal writes articles about our woes. We are ranked 49th or 50th in almost every quality of life metric ( I think we are 47th in one category) with the Democratic Party in charge and getting just about everything it wants. Chicago has a Democrat mayor and EVERY single alderman is a Democrat. How were Republicans not able to capitalize? I believe it was a combination of factors.

First, I believe we got flat-out beat. Democrats got out to the streets first and they didn’t stop. As a precinct committeeman, I notified my area chair and my township chair the day in July when AFSCME was walking my precinct stumping for Bill Foster. I was told that the Judy Biggert campaign was notified. The Biggert campaign took weeks to react with their own walks. The radio and TV ads were dominated by attacks on Republican candidates. Republican responses were either late or non-existent. Republicans were playing defense instead of offense.

Second, I believe that Democrats were successful in linking their candidates to President Obama. Obama voters then voted straight ticket and brought the other Democrats with him. This would explain how a race that looked to be extremely close in the pre-election polling, like the Biggert/Foster race, would turn into  a landslide on election day. I didn’t see Republicans trying to catch any of the Romney “magic.” Yes, it was no secret that there was no hope of Romney defeating Obama in his home state, but we should at least make an effort and fight. I talked to several people in my precinct that were so discouraged by Romney’s prospects in Illinois, that they saw no point in voting. Even after telling them how important it was to get to the polls and ensure that center-right candidates got in office, who knows if they showed up? In short, I’m describing the opposite effect of what the Democrats did. Discouraged Romney supporters may have stayed home, and their votes for other Republican candidates may have stayed home with them. Remember, elections are decided by swaying the undecided voter. These people are not typically partisan, they likely vote on emotion (Remember “It’s the economy, Stupid?”) These voters are also apt to vote straight ticket for that particular election. Is it possible that the IL GOP inadvertently kept these people and their votes home with their “Don’t worry about Romney” strategy? I think it is.

Republicans also have another problem that I think is somehow in our DNA. I have this problem also, even though I have this blog. We don’t proselytize enough. We think that our message and arguments are so obvious that we shouldn’t have to try to win over converts. It’s so simple that people should just get it. It’s freakin’ obvious! But people don’t “just get it”…

…as a result, we don’t appear to have a message. The left is free to define us. Again, we are playing defense.

Please note that I am not blaming the conservative wing, or the moderate wing of the party like some pundits have. I feel that is a hollow argument. Joe Walsh lost. Bob Dold lost. You have both extremes of the Republican party there. Republicans lost. Conservative and moderate both.

I’m most likely preaching to the choir, but there are a lot of naive individuals that think if Barack Obama is no longer out president, then everything will just be hunky-dory. Nothing could be further from the truth. President Obama is more symptom than the disease. Barack Obama was able to become our president because the environment was primed for him. We had a Democratic House and Senate. We had an electorate that was mad at George Bush for being the steward of and promoting policies that he called conservative and Republican, but were so progressive, that Barack Obama only took what Bush did and did it harder.

Progressives believe their way is right. When their policies fail, and they always do, they just blame it on the people who fight them. They say that we haven’t tried it their way enough. I say enough is enough.

The big government, big spenders are running for congressional offices, state offices, municipal offices, and everything else they can get their hands on. We need to have conservatives, and the fiscally responsible run and win these “lesser” offices. Republicans can and have fallen for the spoils that big government can afford them. Power is seductive. The tea parties are the groups that have had the best success in keeping politicians honest. Tea parties have forced Republicans to distinguish themselves from Democrats. Where you have a strong tea party influence you see a stark contrast between the Democratic and Republican candidates. Where tea party influence is weak, you have Republicans running their campaigns telling their audience how much they buck conservative values.

Mitt Romney had a tough primary because he was looked upon as one of the least conservative candidates. What do you think will happen if there is no strong conservative group to keep him honest? Is it possible that he will get pushed toward more progressive policies like Bush I and Bush II? I wouldn’t bet against it. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi haven’t gone anywhere.

Obama’s losing the election (if it happens) is like cutting a head off of the hydra. There are many heads to replace it. Progressives are not going to curl up in a ball and give up.

Oh no, tea-partiers. You can’t stop now. Your job has just begun.