We mustn't let the 'Annie get your gun mentality' prevail

Guns, guns, guns (Photo credit: paljoakim)

Freedom of choice is on the decline in this country spurred by the Annie get your gun mentality. I no longer feel free to live without fear of an encounter with a crazed gunman. They are everywhere!

I have never been among the gun crowd; I have always hated guns and anything that has to do with them. The thought of shooting an animal turns my stomach. I never bought toy guns for my son. I shun all the shoot'em up movies. I abhor violence of all kinds. The older I get, the more I've embraced my life-long pacifistic tendencies. Until now, I have been free to live my life gun-free, but as I begin the autumn of my life, circumstances are forcing me to change my thinking. I say forced because it isn't something I want to do. My freedom to live peacefully without fear has been compromised.

Hate, fueled by ignorance is all around us. It was so evident in Barack Obama's 2012 election to a second term as President of the United States. I do not understand the kind of hatred that is fueled by racism, so much more prevalent than I ever knew. Folks were more inclined to elect a man who used people to get whatever he wanted. He was a proven liar who would say whatever he had to say to advance himself. Many knew it, yet he was a white guy, so he was a better choice in their minds. When Obama was re-elected, thankfully by the more open-minded, thinking people who recognized his attributes and potential to solve some of the deeply ingrained problems caused by the previous presidential administration, I felt relief.

But it was short-lived. A new horror awakened and shocked the nation. The murder of 26 people in Newtown, CT was the worst. Twenty tots along with six teachers and administrators in a public school were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The country seemed to awaken to a reality it didn't seem to want to face before, even in the light of so many needless deaths. No one could turn their eye from the unimaginable horror that filled the classroom on Dec. 14, 2012, the day the country regained a focus on the need to do something about guns.

The majority of the country gets it. There is a need to keep killing machines out of the hands of people who would do harm to innocents. A discussion has begun in earnest about this situation. And so the battle lines have been drawn. The leader of the opposition movement to a sensible solution is once again led by the National Rifle Association and the same voices that spewed hate during the election of our President. The NRA solution is more guns. They want guns everywhere as they make the claim that a well-armed teacher could have prevented lives. More sensible voices say just the opposite. The NRA with its televangelist campaign style rhetoric is fueling more hatred in the name of making more money by selling more guns. Even while the President moves toward a more saner climate, the NRA is fueling the hatred.

From my observation, it appears there are two scenarios.

The first is total paranoia that the government is going to confiscate all guns in some sort of Twilight Zone move to ignore the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The argument is fatally flawed, but is defended to the hilt. There is talk of banning assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, firearms and ammo that is designed for no other purpose than to kill people with rapid-fire ease. Why are these weapons defended by regular people? Who in their right mind believes average citizens should possess these military-type weapons.

The other scenario is fueled by the heads of the household who maintain a genuine fear of an intruder; someone who wants to rob, rape, or murder them in their own home. They want to keep guns on hand for their own protection. They refuse to think their child might one day find that firearm and use it accidentally or on purpose. They refuse to think about that firearm being stolen and used on them, as was done in the case of the Sandy Hook shooter who used his mother's assault rifle to murder her in her bed. The 'it couldn't happen to me' argument is nothing but a fantasy.

Part of the protection argument that may be the most shocking is not the one made by the head of the household; it is made by his wife. Apparently women continue to fear the men in their lives, so they defend their need to have a gun in the house.

Every day the local news is filled with domestic violence, murder, and mayhem that occurs in a not-so-happy home. So many families have become victims of gun violence.

Women have made so many advances in our society, but so many are being left behind, for whatever reason. I suppose when a U.S. Congressman proposes legislation that is degrading to women or others make foolish statements about women's health, it is a real danger sign.

When people vote against intelligence, capability, and integrity in favor of empty rhetoric and and impossible promises and lies, what can we expect? When hope turns to desperation, what can we expect?

I believe the majority of this country is advancing intellectually and socially, but a growing number of folks relate more to Honey Boo Boo than the men and women of science that have advanced our lives and changed our world for the better. I'm very frightened for the next generation. I shudder to think of what kind of America my grandchildren will occupy. The choices that are being made today are so vital. Their future depends on it.

Watch out when they push 'jobs'

Barack Obama, Carol Henrichs 

It is Election Day Eve. It has been a never-ending election season, and yet, in many ways, it is hard to believe we are finally here. As a supporter of four more years for President Obama, I have personally spent months commiserating with like-minded voters and debating and debunking the merits of a Mitt Romney administration.

I have made lots of new friends and probably lost some too.

For me, this election comes down to a continuance of the last 25 years I have spent fighting the State of Illinois’ proposal to build an airport south of Chicago—an airport that is unnecessary, isn’t approved by the Federal Aviation Administration, is opposed by the airlines and the local residents and governments that would have to live with it, and just plain doesn’t fit into the rural area where it is proposed.

I have heard all too often the term “jobs.” This project started as a Republican initiative back in the 1980’s. It is now favored heavily by U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., a Democrat. The line has been blurred between the two. “Jobs” has been the promise--jobs for the poorest suburbs in the Chicagoland area. Trouble is, that would likely not be the result, for a multitude of reasons.

This project has taught me that “jobs” is often nothing more than a political buzzword used by politicians to make it look like they are actually doing something for someone. “Jobs” can also mean total degradation of the environment, whole communities, and destruction of private property, not to mention people’s lives.

That is what I see when I hear Mitt Romney talk about creating “jobs” on day 1, if he is elected. In the context of Romney-speak when he talks about drilling on federal lands, it makes me cringe. When he talks about renewing an energy policy that puts people to work, what he is really talking about is profits for oil, gas, and coal companies at the expense of the natural resources it would destroy. There has to be a balance between the quality of life of people living in the areas rich resources with extracting those from the earth. Romney doesn’t understand that balance. All he understands is profit.

To me, this election is about the intangibles that translate into profit and people. It is always a delicate balance. I just don’t think Romney gets that.

What about the ecosystem that sustains mankind? What about the endangered species that are about to vanish from the earth—species that one day could prove to be a cure for human illnesses? What about the indisputable climate change that has raised temperatures to new heights, caused droughts in the country’s mid-section, and ramped up the effects of storms, like Hurricane Sandy. What about the global conditions that have not yet been felt. The buzzword “jobs” pales in comparison. Survival always trumps jobs numbers. Mitt Romney knows nothing of these complex problems.

Then there are women’s issues. I wrote my first pro-choice letter to the editor years ago. Choice isn’t about the pros and cons of abortion. Nobody likes abortion. Choice is about private, personal decisions being made by a woman with guidance from her family and physician. It is not the concern of the government, let alone to be mandated by government.

There are so many other reasons that a Mitt Romney administration scares me to my core.

Beyond these issues, I could never vote for a candidate whose policies were so opaque, for a candidate who changed his position to accommodate each audience he spoke to, or one that is so beholding to his religious views that he would impose them onto others. Mitt Romney is an elitist that doesn't seem to understand truth, transparency, or compromise. 

It is why I am voting for Barack Obama for President. I am not unhappy with the man who has governed this country for the last four years; he is a man that was able to bring the economy back from the brink after eight of the most trying years of my political lifetime. I am excited to hear Barack Obama speak about “all people.” This should be a country of opportunity for men and women, no matter the age, race, religion, sexual preference, or geographic boundary. I am encouraged by his ability to bring people together, to be able to sort through the layers of complex issues. I love that he has been so tolerant, keeping a steady hand, even when all odds were against him. He has even been able to get things done, despite the bullies in the U.S. House who have thwarted his every initiative. I am proud that he has looked beyond his own personal view to support gay marriage and to follow through with “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.” He really is a trustworthy leader, who understands people, of this country and beyond, and can relate to them. Barack Obama gets it. I love his demeanor and how he has handled difficult times with good humor and compassion. I am proud to call him my President.

Barack Obama must win a second term

US President Barack Obama 

I feel confident that Barack Obama will win a second term in the White House. I say that partially because I cannot imagine any other scenario. Like so many others, I have watched this race with Mitt Romney intensely. I've studied the debates; read all the pundits; and engaged every way possible. There should be no contest. On character alone, Obama is head and shoulders above his challenger. Obama wins on substance, temperament, intellect, diplomacy, integrity, and just about every other way.

I have not, however, donated money to the campaign, for two reasons. 

First, I stand by the principle that elections should not be bought. The Citizens United decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that basically threw out any monetary restrictions in campaign finance is immoral and unethical, in my opinion. I plan to support any effort in the future that will negate this blunder by the corporate-heavy, prejudicial court. 

Probably more importantly, I just don't have money to throw into the political arena. Paying bills and taking care of necessities is a much more responsible avenue in my fixed-income household. I'm at least grateful there is enough to pay for the necessities. 

Just because I am not throwing money at my President does not mean I don't support his candidacy. In fact, any of my Facebook friends will attest that I am a big Obama supporter. I have literally devoted hours in an effort to debunk the lies, distortions, and misrepresentations from my 'friends.' If I got paid for the 'writing' I've done on the subject, my personal economic situation would be greatly improved. That however, is not, nor has never been my goal. I have long endeavored in support for causes that I believe in, not because of what I could get out of it, but for what I could put into it. 

While I definitely do not agree with every policy or decision, I have been proud of the leadership in the White House. I cannot say the same thing for challenger, Mitt Romney. To me, Romney epitomizes everything that appalls me. Born with the proverbial silver spoon in his mouth, he really doesn't stand for anything. Despite his participation in his church, he doesn't appear to me to be a moral character. That is another topic for another time.

While Mitt Romney may have done some good things in his life, I'd be willing to bet he benefited by them. He is the kind of man whose deeds are the main course; while any other benefit to anyone else is merely a side dish. He is a bully, void of empathy. He has harmed countless people for his own gain. To me, that is the lowest form of human behavior. I certainly don't want that type of person leading our country.

I've been amazed at how many people simply hate Obama. It is painfully obvious that irrational feelings of hatred stem from varying levels of racial bias because Obama's father was African-American. The election of this President has caused bigotry to rise to the surface, largely by fringe groups of white, Christians who still judge people by the color of their skin, but even by some who don't admit their prejudices. I find it incredible and frightening that in 21st Century America there are still people so filled with racism--a racism so ingrained in them that it colors their views and perceptions. It is so appalling.

Mitt Romney is the stereotypical white, rich guy that probably never knew the joy of getting his hands dirty. A man of privilege for his entire life, he doesn't know what he is missing. 

How could anyone think he could lead a country where only one percent of the population is like him? Romney's role on the national stage should be limited to that of economic adviser, because that is what he knows. But as the leader of a country that is so diverse, a Romney presidency would be worse than what was experienced under the George W. Bush administration. I never dreamed anyone could be worse than Bush, but I believe Romney would be. While he may be a good business manager, running a country is far more complex and requires skills he does not have. A country is all about its people--something Romney is not very good at. 

Running a country is not about simply descending the stairs from a perch in an ivory tower, writing a few pink slips, and then retreating to the country club to joke about it with friends. 

I am sickened at how the marketing of Mitt Romney has influenced so many people--including many of my friends and family. How can people be so blind as to fall for the faux facts, targeted policies aimed at the audience, plans that change with the wind, and his refusal to answer questions? Where is the substance in this man? 

Mitt Romney has turned the leadership of the country into a game. He wants to win it and he will win at any cost. This isn't about leadership of the country we all hold dear; it is about winning. 

What appalls me the most is that people are not just allowing it but are encouraging it. They have convinced themselves that he is what they see in front of them. In reality what they see is an actor--a made-up for the camera robot with no heart. Funny, they voted for George W. Bush because they thought he was a nice guy, only to learn how wrong they were. These are people who lack the depth of understanding to vote for the person that will do the best job managing our country as just one of many in an increasingly  complex world. I just don't think Mitt Romney is up to the task. 

Parade Route

Politics often provides such a clear distinction between the candidates.

It was at a parade that I met Barack Obama, the Democrat running for a second term as President.

The following picture of the two of us posing in front of my house was taken Beecher, Illinois back in 1994 when Obama was campaigning for  a seat in the U.S. Senate.

I was a small town reporter taking pictures of the Fourth of July parade. We lived along the parade route, so I often combined business with pleasure. I recall being totally excited and amazed that a candidate for the U.S. Senate was walking in our little, small town parade. I had no idea at the time that the man with whom I took this picture would become the 44th President of the United States.

Obama obviously loved campaigning. He loved being around people. He enjoyed meeting them. His huge smile was evidence of how much fun he was having. He reached for as many hands as reached out to him. He was friendly and took time to talk with folks along the parade route. In fact, there were many times he had to run to catch up after being sidelined by questioners and interested future constituents.

Then there is the other side. A video was made of Paul Ryan, the Republican Vice Presidential running mate of Mitt Romney, who is challenging Obama.

I could go on about Romney, but this is a story about parades, so the object is Paul Ryan, the same man whose speech at the Republican National Convention was picked apart by fact checkers the following morning.

Watch how Paul Ryan greets the people along the parade route.

There is no doubt in my mind which man I would rather see lead this country.

Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Blago

The Internet is a funny thing—I just found this post listed in a forum in Paris, Texas.

......................................................................................................................................
I think our justice system is severely lacking in justice for all. 


Blago got -what - 14 years for his crime and Jesse Jackson, jr wasn't even tried for his role. Junior offered to buy the nomination which is just as wrong. And I have to believe that Obama knew about it as well as Eric Holder and Rham Emmanuel. That's a 4 to 1 ratio . Wonder how much was influenced by racism?
......................................................................................................................................


It appears that Illinois and its infamous Chicago's south side Congressman (Jesse Jackson, Jr.) have fans all across the country.

Super PAC Redemption

One of the worst elements in our Democracy, in my view, is the ability to buy an election. This is really nothing new. As the amount of money spent on campaigns escalates, so does my ire. It seems that funding is the single-most determining factor in picking our leaders. But wait…there could be some redeeming qualities about Super PACs.

On their face, I have not changed my opinion. But this year has been so outrageous, so over-the-top, so outlandish, that I can’t help but see not only a little humor in this situation, but a little poetic justice as well.

The Rev. Jackson, latest gift to eastern Will County landowners

Reverend Jesse Jackson Sr. 

The Rev. Jesse Jackson is the latest Christmas present for eastern Will County landowners.

Every year it seems, the State of Illinois' and its lieutenants deliver a new gift to rural folks who live 40 miles south of Chicago.

Christmas traditions can be so heartwarming—except in this case. Here, supporters of the state's plan to build the Peotone Airport—that isn't needed, wanted, or would serve any positive purpose whatsoever for the people of Illinois—have threatened to ruin another Christmas for the good folks out in the country. This tradition has been going on for decades. Yet, somehow the audacity of it still takes me by surprise.

This is the first time, Jesse, Sr. has been involved in this effort.

Lighten up on President Obama

 US President Barack Obama 

Plenty of blame is encircling the White House as Democrats express frustration with President Barack Obama over the compromise deal he made with Republicans on tax cuts.

The wealthiest Americans have been given another perk they didn't need and in some cases don't want, along with those who do need it--middle class America.

Liberals are the most furious with Obama, believing that he has been untrue to the base of support that elected him. There is even talk about finding a candidate to run against him in the next presidential primary.

Wait just a darn minute!

First off, it wasn't just liberals that elected Obama. There were plenty of moderate Democrats. Independents, and perhaps even a Republican or two that cast ballots Obama's way. Obama had a multitude of appealing attributes that made him appeal to voters, not the least of which was his intellect and grasp of the issues that affect real people.

Obama is aware that as President of the United States, he is not just the president of his own political party, but he is president of all Americans.

One of his attributes is that Obama was not a Washington insider who had planted his feet firmly into the muck that is D.C. Because of that, he may have lacked a little experience in dealing with the sharks in the Congress who have sharpened their teeth for years.

Personally, I'm not willing to condemn him for that.

I am a little more frustrated with members of Congress. If Democrats were so anxious to end the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans implemented by Bush, why did they ignore  this battle until the 11th hour? They have been the majority party for two years. If this issue was so important, why didn't they put a little effort into it? During the campaign for the November election, I received dozens of emails, phone calls, and pleas for dollars and support.

Why is getting elected more important than governing?

Passing laws is not up to the President, yet he was forced to take a leadership role in the tax cut deal because Democrats didn't act on it. Only when they learned Obama was negotiating with Republicans, did they take a vote in the House. It was no surprise that it failed because they didn't work at it.

I consider myself liberal in my thinking, and yet I know that governing the country requires looking at the big picture--the whole picture.

I dislike the compromise, but I don't fully believe Obama is the problem.

That said, I am completely giving him a pass.

His political inexperience may have caused him to give in a little too quickly when Republicans threatened to block all bills in the Congress until they got what they wanted.  I have to concur with those who criticized Obama for mentioning a compromise even as he was going into the "talks" with Republicans. Perhaps Obama knew something we didn't. Republicans have made no secret that one of their first priorities was to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans.

I have to fault Obama and Democrats for not pointing out that a tax cut for the top 2 percent of wage earners in this country has no stimulative basis. They have had the tax cuts in place and the economy still tanked. Joblessness has risen while they enjoyed their tax breaks. There is no evidence nor does it make sense that the status quo will cause job creation.

Still, I believe we must not judge Obama too quickly. Obama has had a full plate--inheriting an economic crisis caused by Bush's wars, wealth bailouts, weakening regulations, and other actions. This is only Obama's first half of his first term.

I want it all too, but I am wise enough to recognize that we can't always get everything we want.

Yes, Obama could have/should have used the tools available to him to shame Republicans in numerous national addresses to the people, on television and in editorial pages across the country. He could have waged a campaign-like initiative to inspire the public to lobby their representatives, but it isn't like he was just sitting on his hands. The man has had his hands full.

I believe Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and others are acting like bullies. Do you beat a bully by pissing him off? I don't think so. It may just be more effective in the long run to out-think him. Shaming the Republicans with which Obama disagrees philosophically, would do nothing to help us get through the next two years. We cannot afford more of the gridlock we have experienced in the past when so much needs to be done to get the country back on track.

As we criticize Obama, are we thinking about the future--particularly the next two years?

I guarantee he is. I believe he is planting the seeds that will grow into future compromise, an even more vital commodity when Republicans control the House. Obama does not have the luxury of just washing his hands of them, much as he and we would prefer. He has to deal with them. I'm sure the November election altered his game plan. It had to.

We always say we want real people who we can trust to serve in office.

Yet we inherently don't trust them. We are critical at every juncture. Obama evaluated the situation and did what he thought was right. He kept his eyes on the prize--which was retaining the previous tax cuts for middle class Americans. While he found the tax cut on the top 2% distasteful, as evidenced by numerous statements and even mentioned in the first chapter of his book, there is no question that he didn't enjoy giving in on that front. But that was not his focus. His focus was help for the middle class. And his mandate was to reach across the aisle and to bring the two sides together.

Imagine the consequences if the tax cuts expired. People most unable to deal with it would have been harmed even more. The ripple effect would have derailed any hope of recovery. Obama may have been right not to fight to the bitter end. This would only have further alienated Republicans causing them to further dig in their heels.

It is nice that Democrats in congress say they are willing to go to the mat to fight the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. Fighting for principal is a good thing. I've done it all my life.

But I'm not the President of the United States. Obama can't afford to fight only on  principal because he no longer has that luxury. He must govern us all, even the rich. While the American people won't remember this when the next election cycle rolls around; Obama will. Democrats will. If the rich Republicans don't create the jobs they promise, and help the economy out of the tank, Democrats will hold them accountable to the electorate. The news media will not let rich Republicans get away with it if they fail.

Tax breaks for the wealthy is not a stimulus for job growth. Had it been, we would not have seen unemployment continue to rise during this time--while they enjoy their tax breaks. There is no sound reason for Republicans to get this perk.

Time will likely show that another tax break for the richest two percent of the country was wrong. But it will be so much easier to prove in the future if they fail to produce jobs they promised. This little battle between the President and his own party has made the public aware.

While I too was frustrated with Obama, I am most disgusted by the members of Congress which has failed to act time and time again.

Mostly, I'm disgusted with the electorate--the seemingly good people of this country who believe all the crap the Republicans have sold to them. There is no excuse for the harsh results of the November election except to say that Democrats failed.

The folks who put all those Republicans in office pride themselves in being blind followers. They follow their lord and they follow their political leaders, believing theirs is the only way. They must learn that theirs isn't the only way. There are many other ways. Democrats need to do a better job to educate the electorate--even if it means a little compromise among us on our own independent views.

Not an informed voter, stay home!

Is this not the most disgusting election season in history?

The entire premise that rich people can buy elections has been around for decades, but never before has it been more obvious, at least to some. But some people still don't get it.

The I'm-mad-as-hell-and-I'm-not-going-to-take-it-anymore attitude is normally one I would endorse, but not this year. I am a strong advocate of exercising your right to vote, but only if you are an informed voter. If you are the kind of person that simply falls for the television commercials or glossy brochures that come to your door, please stay home.

Candidates of both parties are lying, manipulating, and waging the battle of their lives. I wish I could calculate the monumental costs of this election, but throw more than six zeros at me and I admit getting a little blurry-eyed. In truth, six figures is about all I can comprehend. Yet there are tens of millions being spent every day across this country. Doesn't anyone have a problem with that?

I used to bristle at the fact that only the wealthy could afford to run for public office. Now, I find myself completely freaking out about how unlimited corporate donations and anyone with tons of money and an agenda can turn any wacko into a candidate.

I've often wondered where this wealth comes from. I certainly don't have it, but then I'm a hard-working, honest person who tries not to hurt or take advantage of other people. My goal in life is not to be rich—I'd rather be happy. I would never step on other people just to get ahead. I don't rip people off. I try to tell the truth. I care about total strangers. I don't think I'm better than anyone else.

It isn't just the act of buying elections that is bothersome. I am horrified about the what if's. What if these nutjobs actually become representatives of our government? These people are going to speak on our behalf. They are going to make decisions that will ultimately affect us all.

I'm not sure what the answers are, but we have to learn from our mistakes. Why aren't we?

Opponents react to reauthorized airport authority bill

The more things change, the more they stay the same; at least in eastern Will County.

Despite changes: Governor, Pat Quinn; State Sen. Toi Hutchinson; U.S. Rep. Debbie Halvorson; U.S. Sen. Roland Burris; and President Barack Obama; the recurring nightmare continues for landowners whose property was designated more than forty years ago as the location for a new airport.

Even with dire economic conditions, a state swimming in red ink, political turmoil, and no interest by airlines even when times were good, the state just can't let go of the project that has barely advanced in over forty years.

A new bill was introduced in Springfield Tuesday, Feb. 10 – SB 1346 — by Sen. A. J. Wilhelmi, D-Crest Hill, Toi Hutchinson, D-Chicago Heights, and Christine Radogno, R-Lemont; to establish the South Suburban Airport Authority.

The bill is similar to that which was proposed and propelled through the Senate last year by U.S. Rep. Debbie Halvorson, D-Crete who was then Senate Majority Leader. The bill died in the House, however.

If approved, the South Suburban Airport Authority would be created. It would consist of a 7 member board. Four would be appointed by the Will County Executive, with advice and consent of the county board. One would be a resident of Crete, Green Garden, Monee, Peotone, Washington or Will townships. The county executive also would name the board chairman.

One director would be appointed by the village presidents and trustees of Beecher, Crete, Monee, Peotone and University Park. The township supervisors and trustees of Bloom, Rich, Orland and Lemont townships would appoint another director.

The last director would be appointed by the chairman of the Kankakee County Board. Board members will be paid $10,000 annually for six-year terms.

If approved, the powers of the authority could commence as soon as July 1, 2010. The date was moved back by one year from the previous version of the legislation.

The authority states that it would serve as co-sponsor of the South Suburban Airport with the Illinois Dept. of Transportation (IDOT) until the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issues a Record of Decision (ROD) and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or until July 1, 2010, whichever is earlier.

At that time, according to the legislation, the authority shall enter into an agreement with IDOT to complete all ongoing projects, including the airport master plan. The authority would then assist the FAA with preparation of the EIS and ROD. When approved, the authority would serve as sponsor of the South Suburban Airport.

The authority would be responsible for preparing and publishing a map showing the airport's location. It shall show existing highways, property lines, and persons paying the most recent property taxes on land that will be needed for future additions.

If a map is filed with the county, landowners would be required to file a 60-day notice byregistered mail to the authority for alterations — even emergency repairs — on their property. The notice would be needed for all improvements in, upon, or under the land involved. They could not rebuild, alter, or add to an existing structure. After the notice, the Authority shall have 60 days after receipt of that notice to inform the owner of its intention to acquire all or part of the land involved; after which the Authority shall have the additional time of 120 days to acquire all or part of the land by purchase or to initiate action to acquire the land through the exercise of the power of eminent domain.

The authority will be responsible for all airport zoning, and will develop and enforce zoning regulations relative to airport hazards.

The legislation gives IDOT a green light to condemn property within the airport's inaugural boundary, "as quickly as possible," stating specifically "where acquisition is not voluntary."

And it isn't just the homeowners that live within the inaugural boundary in jeopardy. The Authority can, for a period of 10 years, control the land outside the inaugural airport boundary.

If the legislation is approved as written, most of the property in eastern Will County will be subject to restriction. For example, no property located within the ultimate airport footprint can change hands without receiving approval from the authority.

The bill assumes passage of an Eastern Will County Development District, which has not yet occurred.

If approved, the legislation makes the enacted authority the only entity authorized to develop, own, or operate the South Suburban Airport. It would supersede any local government, municipality, airport authority, or joint airport commission on that site.

The legislation is scheduled to take effect March 1, 2011.

The legislation is in direct competition with the effort by U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. to provide an airport authority for the airport he has named the Abraham Lincoln National Airport.

Both Jackson and Will County have been battling for years over governance of an airport void of proven need or federal approval.

George Ochsenfeld, president of STAND (Shut This Airport Nightmare Down) was astounded when he heard about another effort by legislators to establish an airport authority with broad, sweeping powers.

"It is absurd that they should waste time and energy on a project that doesn't have a prayer of happening," Ochsenfeld said, given the state of the airline industry and overall economic conditions.

He was surprised to learn that Sen. Christine Radogno, R-Lemont was one of the senators introducing the bill. He would like to remind her that she should heed her own pre-election survey that indicated the majority of people in Will County oppose a new airport.

And, about newly-appointed Sen. Toi Hutchinson, D-Chicago Heights, Ochsenfeld said he is extremely disappointed that she would push something like this without recognizing or consulting with the long held opposition expressed by a large part of her constituency. He wonders if she has even visited the airport site.

Ochsenfeld said this bill is extreme. It outlines plans for not just condemnation, but taking property "as quickly as possible."

He can't help but try to second-guess the motive for introducing the legislation to establish an airport authority.

He speculated that senators sympathetic to Will County could be simply trying to derail the efforts of U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. to build an airport outside his own district.

"If that is the case, we are tired of being the pawns in their corrupt political game," he said, expressing that there are better ways to stop Jackson and to stop the nightmare for eastern Will County residents at the same time.

"We had hope that a new administration would bring about change, yet it appears there is no change on the effort to continue funding the dysfunctional, ill-fated airport to nowhere," he said.

A similar perspective was echoed by landowner Jim Verduin, who has spent years involved in the struggle to protect his rural home.

"As usual our leaders are putting the cart before the horse," Verduin said. "This project is years away from any decision from the FAA, yet the three (potential) sponsors want to put huge restrictions on land use, zoning, and ownership not only for those living inside the inaugural footprint, but also the surrounding communities.

"Every municipality within 50 miles of this project should oppose this bill," Verduin said.

"I believe the main reason to propose this bill now is to stop Jesse Jackson and ALNAC from beating them to the punch. This is not reason enough for such a restrictive piece of legislation."

George Ryan's ups and downs for freedom

The road to justice has been a long and winding one – both for convicted Ex-Governor George Ryan and the people of Illinois whom he defrauded.

A serious blow came to Ryan when President George W. Bush exited the White House without granting clemency for Ryan, the man who chaired Bush's Illinois campaign for President in 2000. This was despite a plea to the Ex-President from Ryan's wife Lura Lynn. Even Illinois' senior senator, Dick Durbin and an-other beleaguered Ex-Governor, Rod Blagojevich, asked for Ryan's release from prison, sug-gesting that his sentence be satis-fied by time served.

Ryan has served one year of his six- and one-half-year sen-tence after being convicted for a litany of corruption charges.

But, expect a new string of support letters to once again head toward 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. on Ryan's behalf. Jim Thompson, another Ex-Governor who is also the high-powered attorney who fought to keep Ryan out of jail for as long as possible, says he will ask Presi-dent Barack Obama for clem-ency for his client.

Thompson told WBEZ radio recently that President Obama has known Ryan since the two worked together in Springfield for a time. Thompson is prepar-ing a new application using the argument that Ryan's continued imprisonment doesn't appear to have deterred other politicians from corrupt activities.

RYAN'S PENSION

In conjunction with Ryan's 2006 conviction, he was stripped of his pension. It amounted to about $197,000 annually.

But the appellate court over-turned the circuit court, ruling earlier this month stating that Ryan could retain the pension he earned from public service prior to his terms as Secretary of State and Governor.

Ryan had also served in the state legislature and as lieutenant governor. According to the high court, he is entitled to keep about $65,000 annually.

But Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who was the first to argue that Ryan should not receive any of his pension, plans to appeal the decision.

At the time of his conviction, she issued a detailed opinion that the convicted felon should be stripped of his pension benefits.

Cook County Circuit Judge Martin Agran agreed with her. He upheld the unanimous ruling of the General Assembly Re-tirement System board that voted to deny Ryan his annual pension.

Madigan said at the time that Ryan forfeited all of his pension benefits, not merely those that accrued during the eight years that he served as Governor and Secretary of State. She also re-quested that he receive a timely and full refund of the contribu-tions he made to the system.

NOBEL PRIZE NOMINEE

There is at least one advocate of Ryan's deeds who has been consistent in his support. Uni-versity of Illinois law professor Francis Boyle, who has long ad-vocated abolishing the death penalty, has placed Ryan's name in nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize for the seventh time.

Boyle says his continuing nomination encourages aware-ness of the issue of capital pun-ishment. Boyle said 37 execu-tions occurred in 2008, a down-ward trend that began with Ryan's death penalty morato-rium.

Ryan did away with Illinois' death row in 2003 before leaving office.

Will County Illinois has its own version of the "Bridge to Nowhere"

Fund request includes local version of 'Bridge to Nowhere'

As part of its $26 million federal request for roads, infrastructure, and safety projects, in advance of President Barack Obama's potential stimulus bill, Will County included a request for funding for planning for a proposed Peotone airport.

The government throwing money at this ill-conceived, unlikely-to-be-completed project might be described as Will County's own version of the 'Bridge to Nowhere.'

Perhaps the project might be more aptly named, 'Flight to Nowhere.'

While there are some very worthwhile and even perhaps critical projects included in the funding request, funds for the 'Flight to Nowhere' is not among them. And perhaps the project should enjoy the same fate as the bridge.

In 2005, the U.S. Congress nixed the $398 million 'Bridge to Nowhere'. It would have served only 50 residents. The bridge was to connect Ketchikan, Alaska to the sparsely populated Gravina Island.
The project, which caused ample embarrassment to the U.S. Congress, was considered the epitome of wasteful spending.

It became the proverbial poster child for congressional earmarks, those eleventh-hour additions tacked-on to federal spending bills by individual congressmen, seeking perks for their districts, usually as a means for getting re-elected. Ever since earmarks became a household word, they have been scrutinized, even though some of those too, represented worthwhile projects. The problem is that many were not.

As is customary, Will County sends its annual request for funding to the federal government. And almost habitually, the request includes funding for the 'Flight to Nowhere.'

Not all habits are good. And this may be one case where change is needed.

With the exception of some political maneuvering, there has been no forward movement on 'Flight to Nowhere' since yet another new map was submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration last March. Who can count all the maps that have been submitted over the past 20 years that the project has been in its perpetual planning phase?

No maps, no matter how skillfully drawn; tax dollars from every level of government; or lofty rhetoric from boosters; has been able to accomplish what a successful airport requires — a federal declaration of need, airlines who will use it, and passengers who want it.

According to a Will County press release, the portion of the $26 million request includes nearly half a million dollars for airport planning. Is continued planning for this boondoggle really the best use of $500,000 of Will County funds?
The Will County release claims that funds would develop a multi-jurisdictional land-use plan that would ensure regional benefits of growth while minimizing any adverse impacts.

This habitual language in Will County's request fails to consider that legislation to establish a development district for which a multi-jurisdictional land use plan would consider, does not exist. It languishes in the rules committee of the Illinois House.

The release states that the development plan was devised by Will County along with the Villages of Beecher, Crete, Peotone, Monee, and University Park.

How long ago was that plan written? How many changes have taken place in the affected communities that have not been incorporated into the plan? Is Will County even aware that these five communities that once held regular meetings may no longer share common concerns?

The planning funds include a 6-township multi-jurisdictional land-use plan. Is that even feasible? It wasn't according to former Transportation Secretary Timothy Martin, who said the ultimate build-out of an airport larger than O'Hare would not happen in his lifetime. Even a scaled-down version looks like an impossibility.
The press release says the federally-funded plan would take into account all types of developments based on the future growth of the communities and airport.

Too bad this funding request failed to consider reality.

• There is no airport project;
• There is no enabling legislation for a development district;
• The five towns that once worked together no longer speak to one another;
• Will County, like the rest of the country, is in the midst of a recession;
• And, air travel is lower than it has been for 15 years, due to the negative economy.

So, is requesting another $500,000 to plan for an unneeded project that has failed to advance from the drawing board in its 20-year existence, a wise use of funds?

Perhaps Will County should realize its perennial request for funding is sorely outdated and represents nothing more than a 'Flight to Nowhere.'