Posts tagged: Republican Party

On the Ballot: Pro-Life Libertarian Candidate for Governor



Written by

The Illinois Libertarian Party candidates will be on the November 2014 ballot, the State Board of Elections Board decided Friday.

“We’re certified and we’re on the ballot,” Brian Lambrecht of the DuPage County Libertarians told Illinois Review shortly after leaving the hearing in Chicago.

“The Republicans did everything they could to discredit the petition signatures to get us from the 46,000 signatures we gathered to below the required 25,000 signature threshold, but they failed,” Lambrecht said.

In addition to volunteer petitioners like Lambrecht, several professional petitioners had been hired by the Libertarian Party to gather petition signatures. Republican operatives worked especially hard to discredit those that had gathered 2000 or more, he said.

“These people gather petitions for a living, so their livelihood was threatened by armed guards coming to their homes and demanding that they sign an affadavit admitting they had committed fraud,” Lambrecht told Illinois Review. “These people fought for their jobs and their reputations by testifying at several Board of Election hearings over a two week period of time.”

—– See IR story: “Illinois Petition Politics: Signatures, Courts and Armed Investigators” —–

“The tactics the IL GOP used really hurt them in the long run,” Lambrecht said.

The Libertarian Party has little funding and ability to get their message out, but Lambrecht said the gubernatorial candidate Chad Grimm would appeal to social conservatives that are uncomfortable with the more socially-moderate Bruce Rauner. Grimm will be holding a press conference downtown on Monday to announce his campaign plans and acquaint voters with his platform.

In 2010, a third party candidate Scott Lee Cohen won 3.64 percent of the vote in a race with less than 1% difference between the Democrat winner Pat Quinn and Republican Bill Brady. A majority of Cohen’s support came from the southside of Chicago.

“The Libertarian Party has a lot of work to do in the next two months, but we can make a difference on the November ballot,” Lambrecht said.

Screen Shot 2014-08-22 at 12.13.41 PM

 Faith, Family and Freedom Banquet
With Eric Metaxas on Sept. 19th!


Pat Brady Digs In — Will County GOP Calls For His Resignation

Written by David E. Smith, IFA Executive Director

This past weekend, Pat Brady, Chairman of the Illinois Republican party, was interviewed on Fox 32 about his political activity to help Illinois Democrats pass radical Leftist legislation to redefine marriage and family.  This conflicts not only with the Illinois Republican Platform and the National Republican Platform but also with the views of the majority of voters in the state –specifically members of Brady’s own party.  (Watch the video HERE.)

Political Reporter Mike Flannery begins by attempting to confuse the issue by suggesting in his first question that the private political activity of Brady can be seen as outside his very public and official position of GOP chairman.  Not only is this absurd, it is intellectually dishonest to try to bifurcate the political activity of the two.

This truth becomes clear in Brady’s answer in which he is unable to separate his “personal opinion” from his official role, saying that Illinois’ current Defense of Marriage Law is “not what the Republican Party stands for.”

But Brady’s most outrageous and hypocritical comments came as he attempted to advance a narrative that blames social conservatives for all the problems the party and the state face.

“But I do believe that part of the reason that we are losing here in Illinois is our message is getting muddled by these social issues.  And the issues that we can win upon, the fiscal issues, I mean can you see a bigger mess in the country than Governor Quinn has made of the state of Illinois and the Democrats over the last twelve years?  And these social issues tend to muddle our good message that people agree with us on.  They scare suburban women.  They scare minorities.  And young people look at us like we are out of the stone age.”

I have a number of responses to offer:

  • If Pat Brady really believes that the social issues are muddling the GOP’s so-called “good message that people agree with us on,” why in the world has he decided to roll up his sleeves and get involved promoting a social issue, let alone join the side that runs contrary to the very platform he is supposed to represent?
  • Obviously, Pat Brady has succumbed to liberal propaganda that wrongly asserts that marriage is a civil right. It is not.  Read more HERE.
  • Brady wrongly claims that the social issues scare minorities.  Every time a state marriage amendment has been placed on a ballot, there has been strong support for traditional marriage from the black and Latino communities.  And in our work to oppose marriage redefinition legislation here in Illinois, some of the most vocal and animated opposition is coming from black and Latino religious leaders.  Brady is out-of-touch with reality and woefully uniformed.
  • Brady suggests that the “good message” of the GOP is getting muddled by social issues.  I have been politically active in Illinois for more than fifteen years now.  Never have I seen the Illinois GOP promote social issues.  Pat Brady and his recent predecessors have gone out of their way to avoid talking about the social issues. So, how is Brady’s “good message” getting muddled by something they have refused to talk about?  The sad truth is that while the Democrats have boldly pushed critical social issues related to homosexuality to the forefront of the political landscape, RINOs like Brady have said nothing.  As Democrats stand ready and eager to effectively destroy marriage, Brady scolds Republicans both for engaging in the social issues and for not joining extreme Democrats in this leap toward cultural suicide.
  • Later in the segment, Brady points to the Republican Party’s “AAA Team” as examples of upcoming young minority stars within the party, including:  U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (Florida), Governor Susana Martinez (New Mexico), and Governor Nikki Haley (South Carolina).  Ironically, each one of these minority GOP stars is unabashedly pro-marriage.  And you can add to this list:  Governor Bobby Jindal (Louisiana), U.S. Senator Tim Scott (South Carolina), U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (Minnesota), and U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (Texas).

And in related news, Will County Republican Chairman Edward Ronkowski reports:

At our well attended Second Congressional District Republican candidate debate on January 17, 2013, without any discussion on the issue of retaining Illinois Republican Chairman Patrick Brady, we offered all attending the opportunity to cast a secret written ballot asking “Should Illinois Republican Chairman Pat Brady resign?” After the debate, two Republican State Central Committeemen and two Republican County Chairmen counted the ballots with poll-watchers in attendance.  The vote was 58 for Pat Brady to resign, 4 for him to stay, and two ballots submitted that were not voted.” [Emphasis added.]

Please take a moment to contact your member of the Republican State Central Committee (the governing board of the Party) to ask them to demand the resignation of Pat Brady.

Steven Daglas (District 1) —

Judy Diekelman (District 2) —

Angel Garcia (District 3) —

VACANT (District 4)

Skip Saviano (District 5) —

Chris Kachiroubas (District 6) —

Carol Donovan (District 7) —

Eugene Dawson (District 8 ) —

Jack Dorgan (District 9) —

Mark Shaw (District 10) — (847) 244-4696

Barbara Peterson (District 11) —

Deb Detmers (District 12) —

Roger Claar (District 13) —

Jim Oberweis (District 14) —

Jerry Clarke (District 15) —

Dave Syverson (District 16) —

Judy Dudek (District 17) –

Mike Bigger (District 18) – m.bigger@m​

Bob Winchester (District 19) —

Eating Our Own?

Recently, someone accused Illinois Family Action of “eating our own” for criticizing the positions of a Republican candidate for the Illinois State Senate. Here are the thoughts of one IFA reader, attorney Mark Rouleau, to the notion that conservatives ought not criticize any Republicans running for office:

The description of criticism of Republicans as “eating our own” is the product of a reprobate mind and a seared conscience. Such a charge reflects a kind of tribalism. Yeah, rah, rah for our team and our guys because they wear our colors (a la gang style). It doesn’t matter if they are upholding godly positions.

Personally, I will vote for pro-life Democrats or third party candidates who believe in traditional marriage and limited government over a Republican who doesn’t believe in those things, even if that means that they will cost Republicans on other votes.

Eating one’s own is exactly what our society does when it allows people to kill their children. When people think it is all right to kill a baby because the baby is not wanted (their only crime is not being loved enough), it is usually premised upon the thought that everyone (primarily the parents but of course the rest of society) “can live a better life” as a result of the killing. Some with this reprobate thinking extend the argument to say that the baby is better off being dead than with parents that do not want them. It is a moral decision that is bought off with money, lifestyle, or convenience. An even scarier basis for the belief that abortion on demand is a good thing is premised in eugenics (see Maafa 21) and the Nazi ideal of creating a “master race.”

IFA’s point is well made that those who think this way are not our own. Those who espouse the idea that we should support someone who morally disagrees with our very core simply because they wear the same team jersey do not have the same Father as we do. They have an entirely different father who has been a liar from the beginning of time.

The fact is that when the Republican Party backs free markets without morality the implicit statement is society should devour its young and refuse to take care of those who need our help (some people go as far as to call them “useless eaters”). This is contrary to the views of Adam Smith (an ardent Scottish Presbyterian), the father of the “Free Market” theory who clearly argued in the “Theory of Moral Sentiments” that morality was necessary to make the free markets work.

While amoral, fiscal-only Republicans argue that taking care of the poor is a role for private charity (which I agree with) then they strip morality away from governance, they also remove morality from the consciousness of the public (i.e., the culture of death). People then apply the moral ambiguity of perceived “enlightened self-interest,” and come up with all kinds of excuses for disposing of the “useless eaters.” They, in fact, devour the young.

Even the agnostic Thomas Paine recognized the moral underpinning of 1776 England when he wrote: “But Britain is the parent country, say some. Then the more shame upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their families.”

His argument is that England was devouring her young (the colonies and the people in the colonies) and, therefore, England was not the legitimate parent of the American Colonies. Rather, European Christendom was the legitimate parent. We know that the devouring was the result of “mercantilism” (controlling the means of production), which required the colonies to ship raw materials to England and to purchase their finished goods from England. We also know the outcome of this policy was a Revolution.

The person who wrote that “tribal” comment is willing to sacrifice the young for the “good of the tribe.” He is not unlike the Spartans who were willing to throw their weak and defective infants over a cliff for the good of their society.

I for one do not want to be a member of that tribe or family. My family is with brothers and sisters in the biblical Jesus Christ.

Modified by Matthew