Aurora and the IL Democrat Machine
Pictured right are Aurora Police Chief William Powell, IL Attorney General Lisa Madigan, and Aurora Mayor Tom Weisner on October 26 at Aurora’s Annual Police Luncheon. Madigan was the guest speaker and “honored for her office’s efforts to fight the spread of illegal drugs.”
The photo is taken from the AG’s website. And here we see how politics works, the “scratch-back-while-watching-back” system. Madigan is Weisner’s reward for being a good pro-abort Democrat as well as a subtle reminder of the support he will lose if failing to keep Planned Parenthood Aurora’s doors open….
Because of PP, amateur Aurora Democrats have now been plopped into high stakes IL politics. Those outside of IL should know Lisa’s father Michael, Speaker of the House, is the 2nd most powerful politician in IL, next to Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. Some argue he’s #1. It is strongly rumored – almost a given – that Lisa plans to run for governor in 2010, whether or not Democrat Gov. Rod Blagojevich runs again.
IL’s abortion industry and lobby is very powerful. Blagojevich is likely the most pro-abort of all 50 governors. To potentially take him on, Lisa must contend, and she does. While her second baby’s heart beats within her, Madigan is a ruthless pro-abort stalwart.
Who else bowed at Lisa’s feet October 26? Aurora Democrat Alderman Stephanie Kifowit (pictured left), which explains why, in a highly unusual move, she disallowed the nonbinding parental notice resolution out of a Government Operations subcommittee last week, which would appeal to state politicians to enact a parental notification law. Kifowit has freely admitted she talked to Madigan about it Friday. Kifowit has her own political aspirations that Lisa and the renowned IL Democrat Machine would squash like a bug if she steps out of line.
And IL’s Democrat Machine also explains why Aurora counsel Alayne Weingartz inexplicably and, on the surface irrationally, showed up at Saturday’s protest of PP and singlehandedly disrupted the peace, threatening arrests. She has tried to shut down pro-lifers from the get-go as part of that Machine.
It explains why Weingartz is ignoring a host of ordinances to keep PP open. She might as well become an official deathscort for the place.
I often say pro-lifers should not even vote for a dogcatcher who isn’t pro-life. You never know the aspirations of politicos who use low level positions as stepping stones, which is a dynamic in the Aurora PP situation. And you never know when abortion will interject itself in the strangest places, and other low level politicians will simply want to tow the line to protect their menial jobs, which is also a dynamic in the Aurora PP situation.
[HT for AG photo: Dolores W.; Weingartz photo credit: Families Against Planned Parenthood; Kifowit photo credit: Fran Eaton]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I often say pro-lifers should not even vote for a dogcatcher who isn’t pro-life.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Speaking as a pro-choice dogcatcher, I can tell you right now that you’d lose.
It looks like the next Presidential election may very well come down to a race between the pro-choice Democrat, and the pro-choice Republican.
that’s right Laura. woof.
local or national, if you want to get elected, you have to be pro-choice.
Laura: I think you are counting your chickens well before they hatch!
Hal: Huh?
Jill,
Why on earth is Alayne, Corporate Coucil, allowed to stir up anything, anyway? I guess I just don’t understand the perimeters of her role as Corporate Council.
PL Laura, read George Will’s recent column on “abortion, so what?”
This issue is fading like a cheap suit….
PLL: Alayne’s interjection Saturday was truly inexplicable and bizarre other than to demonstrate her allegiance to PP, abortion, and/or the Democrat Machine.
I read George Will’s column and almost posted it here earlier.
When the mosy right-wing conservative in America – not to mention a rabid pro-lifer – declares the issue fairly dead, it may be fairly dead:
GEORGE WILL: Abortion’s “so-what” factor
George Will | Washington Post Writers Group
October 28, 2007
WASHINGTON – Almost 35 years have passed since the Supreme Court decided to end America’s argument about abortion. Because of the court’s supposedly therapeutic intervention in the nation’s supposedly inadequate democratic debate about that subject, the issue still generates an irritable irrationality that was largely absent prior to 1973.
Then, America was operating under a regime of moral federalism. In the absence of ukases from the federal judiciary that generate continentwide eruptions of tension and anger, many states were re-examining their abortion regulations, and many were relaxing them. To sample today’s confusions, consider California.
There the electorate so strongly supports abortion rights that no right-to-life candidate for governor, U.S. senator or president has won in California since 1988. This is so in spite of the fact that a governor, U.S. senator or president has only slight relevance to the status of Californians’ abortion rights.
Nevertheless, it is said that if the Republican Party wants to be competitive in California in presidential politics, it must nominate a pro-choice candidate, of which there is only one – Rudy Giuliani. This is almost certainly true. It certainly is irrational because pro-choice Californians have next to nothing to fear – just as pro-life Californians have next to nothing to hope for – from a right-to-life president. The practical consequences of such a president concerning abortion would not differ significantly from Giuliani’s consequences. Here is why.
Abortion policy is almost entirely in the custody of the U.S. Supreme Court, and will remain so unless or until the court decides to restore moral federalism regarding the issue. On Jan. 20, 2009, when the next president is inaugurated, the court will have one justice in his late 60s (David Souter, 69), four justices in their 70s (Steven Breyer, 70; Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia, 72; Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75) and one 88-year-old, John Paul Stevens. The two who will be oldest, Ginsburg and Stevens, are strong supporters of a constitutional right to abortion. The three who will be youngest – John Roberts, 53; Samuel Alito, 58; Clarence Thomas, 60 – seem unsympathetic to the court’s abortion jurisprudence.
The next president probably will have an opportunity to significantly shape the court, which has frequently divided 5-4 on important questions, including abortion issues. But regarding abortion, the reasonable response to this fact from residents of many, perhaps most, states, and especially from Californians, should be a shrug of a question – “So what?”
Suppose Giuliani or some other Republican becomes president and responds to a court vacancy the way all the Republican candidates promise to, with a nominee similar to Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito. And suppose a case gives the court an opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade. And suppose it does so.
Pause here a moment. This third supposition is somewhat dubious, because one of the justices who thinks Roe was improperly decided might nevertheless reason as Chief Justice William Rehnquist finally did concerning the “Miranda rights” of arrested persons – the right, arising from a 1966 ruling, to be notified of their right to counsel and their right to remain silent. Rehnquist repeatedly and strongly argued that the Constitution, properly read, did not require the ruling, which he thought impeded effective police work. But when in 2000 a case gave the court an opportunity to overrule Miranda, Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion in a 7-2 decision upholding it. He wrote:
“Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture. While we have overruled our precedents when subsequent cases have undermined their doctrinal underpinnings, we do not believe that this has happened to the Miranda decision.”
So, the overturning of Roe might not result from a Republican president’s alteration of the court’s balance. But suppose it did.
Again, so what? Many, perhaps most, Americans, foggy about the workings of their government, think that overturning Roe would make abortion, one of the nation’s most common surgical procedures, illegal everywhere. All it actually would do is restore abortion as a practice subject to state regulation. But because Californians are content with current abortion law, their legislature probably would adopt it in state law.
It is not irrational for voters to care deeply about a candidate’s stance regarding abortion because that stance is accurately considered an important signifier of the candidate’s sensibilities and sympathies, and of his or her notion of sound constitutional reasoning. But regarding abortion itself, what a candidate thinks about abortion rights is not especially important.
Hal & Laura:
In the last 35 years, this issue has never been brought to such a light. Hal, I don’t understand how you can possibly feel that this issue is “fading”. This issue is on fire! From news broadcasts, newspapers,television shows, documentaries, movies, websites…the issue has never been brought to such a forefront in 35 years!!! An opinion from a writer at the Washington Post does not bear too much credibility or thought with me anyway!
Jill, you continue to amaze me with the things you see with your conspiracy glasses on. I can only wish that we pro-choicers were even half as organized as you seem to think we are.
Note to Laura and Heather and the others who copy and paste complete articles here: To excerpt in order to make comments is fair use, but republishing a complete article is a violation of copyright. Instead, please consider posting a link to the original article.
Hal, as far as state elections, I think it depends on the state. I know in MA even our Repubs are prochoice. I know of a few prolifers in state government, but not many.
PL Laura, abortion is consistently low on every poll of what issues Americans care about. The pro-choice side thinks status quo is safe, thus they don’t care. The pro-life side is small and marginal. (and divided–parental notification issue discussed yesterday leads some to conclude any law that ends with “and then you can kill the baby” is bad policy)
Hal,
PL side is not divided on abortion…maybe on parental notification, though. I think that if pro-lifers would look at parental notification as a “baby step” in the right direction, we wouldn’t be so divided. Though you feel that the pro-life side is small and marginal, more and more are “coming out of the closet” to voice their opinions. Therefore, if a poll was taken now to show how many more are voicing their disgust now than a year ago, I think you would see that the #’s are staggering. This is just the beginning, Hal. PP Aurora became a light to the world! (the evil, that is!)
Is it just me, or does the picture of Weisner, above, look like he’s glowing?
PP gave Blagojevich over $100,000 to get elected as governor in 2002. Just thought you would want to know.
PL Laura, read George Will’s recent column on “abortion, so what?”
This issue is fading like a cheap suit….
Posted by: hal at October 31, 2007 10:01 AM
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Why does a candidate need to advocate access to abortion if abortion is totally irrelevant?
Milehimama,
Doesn’t surprise me, but makes me wonder how a not-for-profit that receives funding from taxpayers can give it away to those who make decisions on funding?
Great post Jill…
what a slimy group of politicians, although I’ll bet Massachusetts would rival them pretty good, they just expanded the buffer-zones at Killing mills from 18 to 35 feet( the biggest of all states )….again slimy Democrats were behind this as well.
Oh, well, it was the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and Victory Fund, not the Planned Parenthood that provides health services. One has a hand out, one has a hand to scratch backs. That’s how you know the difference.
I see..it probably came out of the profits from the not-for-profit organization…
Doesn’t surprise me, but makes me wonder how a not-for-profit that receives funding from taxpayers can give it away to those who make decisions on funding?
Posted by: PL Laura at October 31, 2007 12:18 PM
This goes back to the Roman concept of bread and circus.
If you allow those who are not stakeholders to influence gov’t they will vote for those things that benefit themselves without regard for what is best for society. It is a limitation of a democratic system.
Hippie: I get that, I just don’t see the concept of our tax $ going towards these types of contributions…I think it’s hypicritical of a not-for-profit org. that receives gov. funding to use it for political gain. It’s purely hypocracy at its finest! Gov. funding should stop…looks to me like they have enough private funding and profits.
PL Laura,
I never got a chance to tell you how great it was to meet you.
You too Kristin and Tara! Made me feel STRONG!
Yes, mk…meeting everyone was great!!! You guys are all as beautiful in person as you are on the blogs! :)
PL Laura,
It is corruption. It needs to be exposed. Most folks don’t know about it. The current congress is voting to spend $1.4 billion to buy excess US produced sugar. People don’t know because the media keeps us entertained with the details of Britney Spears life instead of what the gov’t is doing with our money.
I think, thanks to the Aurora fiasco, that it is finally getting its well deserved exposure. I believe Jill wrote an article recently re: the cutting of funds to PP. Not to mention the 157+ plus companies that have pulled their funding as well. Let’s keep the ball rolling!!! Remember, every post has key words that can be googled!
PL Laura: Is it just me, or does the picture of Weisner, above, look like he’s glowing?
Well, “Aurora’s Annual Police Luncheon.” Maybe it was one of the three-martini variety.
Doug,
Too funny…or maybe he’s just basking in the glow of corruption!
Note to Laura and Heather and the others who copy and paste complete articles here: To excerpt in order to make comments is fair use, but republishing a complete article is a violation of copyright. Instead, please consider posting a link to the original article.
Posted by: Ray at October 31, 2007 10:22 AM************************* huh?
PL Laura, Kristen, and Tara, oh you guys all met up? Tell us more! What did you guys do? Did you hit it off?
Hey Jill, you got it right about the Alayne disturbing the peace.
She should be arrested for disturbing the peace of the peaceful and orderly gathering of citizens last Saturday. Until she arrived and started ordering the chief of police to have his deputies move us all over the place, everything was going smoothly and calmly. We cooperated with the police’s strange orders to move off one sidewalk, then move off the median strip, then get off the other traffic lane, even though the street was blocked by squad cars.
Beside the fact that the Alayne is a “piece of work”, she is attempting to incite citizens to react to her harassment tactics.
It hasn’t worked thus far and it won’t work because we know what she is up to. We are peaceful, prayeful and abiding by the law. She is not.
Hi mk and Kristen,
It was great to meet you guys to. Trick or Treating is finally over. Thank goodness.
Hey did you hear what the name of the evergreens they planted are called? Arborvitae which means which means “tree of life”. Don’t you love it. They surrounded themselves with 70 trees of life!!:) Besides it really gives us protection from the wind. We must really be getting to them. They can’t even look at people peacefully praying.
While I was out there yesterday, people stopped and stated that PP was ridiculous and obviously paranoid. The more they build “walls” around themselves the more likely they will implode.
Heather,
Yeah, we all met. It was only for a few minutes tho because the last bus was leaving and I had to go. Tara popped up at the last minute.
Kristin was there with a ton of kids…Nate and Kate, and Billy and I’m ashamed to say I can’t remember the others. PL Laura has one child, but he wasn’t there. Hannah was there with her mom Rosie, and if it’s possible, she was cuter than last month. Rosie’s husband Joe K (You remember him don’t you?) was there also. And my son Tommy.
Jill couldn’t make it. Also you kind of felt like wherever you stood, you were in the way. It was not good. I miss the open field…sort of made you feel like you were at a parish picnic…
But it was really great to see everybody. Isn’t Carrie from the area too?
Jacquie,
Everybody keeps asking about Lauren. Is everything okay? Have you heard from her?
MK, I am from southeastern MA. I think Jasper and Dan are the only other MA residents who post on this board. I would have loved to go though.
Hi Guys – Sorry, I wasn’t on at all yesterday b/c of all the Halloween parades, etc. Anyway, yes it was great meeting you all!
My kids loved being at the rally and my oldest son, Nate, made sure everyone had signs and was marching us around! It was great. (Heather, my kids are Madeline, Nate, Catherine, Noah, Will, and Meg.)
PL Laura, Tara, Rosie, and (MK – but do you pray at this one?) get my email from MK and let me know when you guys are at PP and maybe we can schedule times together sometimes.
Kristen,
I think that is a great idea. I would love to have all of us meet at PP to pray. Did you all hear that there will be anoter rally on Sat. Nov 17 from 9-11:30am and then one on Dec. 15th from 9-10:30am. I hope some of you are able to come.
Actually, I was also wonering where Lauren was. Is she okay?
Kristen,
I’m up there every day (weekdays in the evenings) and Saturday 8:30am till about 10:00pm. Sunday, after laundry & cleaning is done!! (about 3:00) – We should definately set something up..just let me know what time is good for all of you! I’ll be there!
Kristen and PL Laura,
I usually go during the week around 12:30pm or so, but I could certainly come out on a Saturday if it worked for everyone. We can enjoy the smell of the trees of life that were just planted.
PL Laura – I was so glad that the rain held off on you guys last night. Did the crazies come out and harass you guys again?
I’m very sporadic so I’ll make it whenever you guys can. The weekends are my only “sure” time, but I try to come out as often as I can.
I work full time from home, plus three of mine are still not in school so it’s hard. Sometimes I take them all out in the car and sit in the parking lot next to PP to say a Rosary.
Let’s set up something for the weekend.
Tara,
NOT ONE crazy last night!! (One car drove by & told us to keep up the good fight, though!) Those trees certainly do keep the wind away! Last night was so windy, but behind the trees of life, you wouldn’t even know it!