Who’s more out-of-touch?

It was earlier this week that we learned of a federal judge in Texas who issued an order that prevented a Texas state effort to prevent municipalities from declaring themselves to be sanctuary cities with regards to immigration policy.

Also earlier this week was the initiative signed into law by Gov. Bruce Rauner that declared all of Illinois to be something similar to a sanctuary place – one in which local police are prevented from harassing people because of suspicions about immigration law violations.

SO WHAT’S THE latest action? It seems we have six members of the Illinois General Assembly – all Republican and from communities of a less-urban composition – who are coming up with bills determined to repeal the Trust Act.

That was the measure that Rauner used to take his immigration-related action, and was one that received overwhelming support from the General Assembly.

So it may be very likely that these half-dozen legislators aren’t acting with serious hopes of actually getting anything undone. They just want to be sure they’re on the record as being on the side of the crackpots who want to view immigration law as an excuse to harass those who aren’t exactly like themselves.

Now for those who are saying to themselves, “That’s overly harsh!” or are thinking other obscene thoughts about me right now, I’m not apologetic.

“CRACKPOTS” IS ABOUT the nicest term I can use to describe these people, who clearly are putting themselves on the wrong side of the issue – just like all the people of a half-century or so ago who were determined to believe that the concept of segregation somehow had a place within our society.

Maybe some people just feel the need to create someone else to look down upon themselves, because otherwise they’d have to look at themselves and realize how little they contribute to our society?

My own viewpoint on the whole immigration issue and sanctuary cities, welcoming cities or whatever label you put on it is that it makes sense that local police enforce local law and federal immigration officials enforce the U.S. immigration policies.

GARCIA: Struck down Texas efforts

Seriously, I wouldn’t expect local cops to comprehend the nuances of immigration policy. I don’t think they should be expected to do something that is beyond their jurisdiction.

THE KIND OF people who would want local cops to get themselves involved in something that is beyond their scope are the kind who view police as the official thugs of municipal government – harassing those whom they object to.

Which most definitely is NOT what any responsible person should expect from their police. Or what any responsible law enforcement officer should have any desire to do.

Much of the cheap political rhetoric coming from the White House in this Age of Trump about sanctuary cities and wanting to revoke federal funding from those municipalities is truly pathetic. Only the most pathetic of pols are trying to side themselves up with it.

Because it’s pretty much a safe thing that those people some 50 years from now are going to come off looking absurd, if not downright ignorant.

WHICH IS WHY U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia issued the order on Wednesday that prevented Texas from enforcing its initiative to make sanctuary cities such as the now-completely-flooded-over Houston a prohibited concept.

CURIEL: Judge who infuriated Trump

I’m sure the crackpots are going to be spewing nonsense about Garcia similar to how Trump himself tried attacking federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel (an East Chicago, Ind., native) of California because of his rulings in that court case that ultimately found the concept of Trump University to be less-than-legitimate.

But that’s what too much of the immigration opposition rhetoric comes down to – trash talk that no one of intelligence can possibly take seriously.

And the day will come when state Reps. John Cabello of Rockford, David McSweeney of Barrington, C.J. Davidsmeyer of Jacksonville and David Reis of Olney, along with state Sens. Kyle McCarter of Lebanon and Tim Bivins of Dixon (as a former county sheriff, he in particular should know better) will regret how ridiculous they looked this week.

  -30-

Is Bost outburst worth noting?

Our state’s General Assembly spent their spring months trying to balance a budget with a big hole, while also trying unsuccessfully to resolve the long-festering shortfalls in pension funding and having to deal with healthcare for lower-income residents.

BOST: This week's legislative highlight?

Yet why do I suspect that the lingering image most people will have of the Illinois Legislature for this year, and perhaps for some time, is the site of Mike Bost having a hissy-fit and losing control while on the Illinois House floor?

THE VIDEO SNIPPET of Bost, a Republican from in and around Carbondale in Southern Illinois, is all over the Internet. We get to see him throw his papers in the air and punch at them as they fall back to his desk top (and the floor).

We got to hear him say some dirty words (unless we happened to view it on television, in which the profanities were blipped out).

The incident occurred Tuesday, and doesn’t seem to want to die – because it is the kind of stupid, trivial moment that needs no context to comprehend. A p-o’ed legislator loses his temper!

I literally woke up Thursday morning, turned on a television, and got treated to the sight of Bost on a national news broadcast – with one-time Chicago newswoman Robin Meade getting a chuckle about our state’s crazed politicos.

SOMEHOW, I HAVE a feeling that people will remember Bost longer than they remember whatever attempt at a pension funding solution our Legislature tried to concoct in its final hours of the 2012 spring session.

I also suspect that Bost on Tuesday managed to write the lede to his obituary. I’m not saying he’s on the verge of death, either literally or politically. There may even be some people who gain respect for him because of his outburst.

But it will be the lasting image many of us will have of the man, even though he has served in the Illinois House since 1995 (which means he’s been around long-enough to remember the two-year aberration when Republicans ran roughshod over Madigan and Democrats)  and doesn’t seem to be in any political danger of being dumped on an Election Day anytime soon.

Even though, by government standards, Bost’s outburst doesn’t seem all that outrageous. Sadly enough, neither is the reason why he was upset.

FOR THE RECORD, it was because of the aforementioned pension reform issue. A possible reform plan was presented to legislators, who were then asked to consider a vote on it.

Bost claims he only had 20 minutes to try to digest the content of several hundred pages of content related to the issue. He tried to turn this into a matter of Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, ram-rodding partisan measures through the General Assembly by keeping the legislators ignorant.

Which is true enough, but not just on this issue. Way too many legislators vote on measures based solely on the couple paragraph summary they get presented by their leaders.

By “leaders,” I’m including the Republican leadership – who often keep their members in a tight rank-and file when it comes to casting votes on bills. This really isn't anything new.

THERE’S ALSO ONE other factor to consider when trying to put the Bost hissy-fit into context – it was a one-man operation, which makes it lesser in my mind.

Let’s not forget the incident near the end of last year when state Sens. Kyle McCarter, R-Lebanon, and Mike Jacobs, D-Moline, had to be separated from what could have become a physical brawl.

That moment got so out-of-hand that McCarter literally tried to get the Sangamon County state’s attorney’s office to prosecute Jacobs on criminal charges – claiming he was assaulted with a punch to his chest. Fortunately for common sense, prosecutors didn’t get involved.

Although to some of us, the grand-daddy of all legislative outbursts will be that moment when now-retired state Reps. Bill Black of Danville and Terry Parke of suburban Hoffman Estates let their tempers get the best of them during a 1992 legislative debate over public education funding.

DID THEY PUNCH each other? Did they push and shove? Who had the better “form?”

Even now, some two decades later, it still can be a topic of discussion for political observers to quibble over – in between those “high-minded” policy talks about issues that often delve to the level of “Where’s mine?” and “Who gets dumped on more?”

  -30-

Holding a finger into the wind before taking that ‘bold’ stance on an issue

Political people are inherently similar, regardless of what level of government they happen to work in.

MORENO: Backing the marchers



Whether urban or rural, progressive or conservative, ethnic or as boringly Anglo as one can get, it seems that any public official who happens to take a stance on an issue usually winds up siding with the types of people who he thinks will vote for him.

POLITICIANS HAVE A knack for “boldly going” wherever their desired constituents lead them.

At least that’s what I can’t help but perceive from watching the recent actions of Kyle McCarter and Proco “Joe” Moreno.

The latter is a Chicago alderman – the boss of the no-longer-mob-influenced First Ward, while the former is a state Senator from a rural town that views Decatur, Ill., as its “big” city. One is a Democrat from the Wicker Park neighborhood that isn’t as trendy anymore as it likes to think it is, while the other is a Republican who likely has no use for any of those “trendy” types from select Chicago neighborhoods.

Yet both of them are inherently animals of the political species. (Homo politicus?) Which is why I get my chuckles from their “bold” stands that are about as predictable as one can get.

IN THE CASE of Moreno, he came out on Friday and told WBEZ-FM during an interview that he is supportive of all these protesters who have been marching in cities across the nation, including Chicago (going so far as to get arrested Saturday night when they wouldn’t leave Grant Park at its official closing time).

Which is a bit of a shock, since he may be the first government official to say much of anything about these people. Other officials who have been asked have managed to come up with solid streams of gobbledygook on the subject.



McCARTER: Backing the church

But Moreno says nice things about the people, even saying that he thinks their message will become sharper and more to the point as they continue to march and picket.

“It just shows the rage and the inequity where you’ve got our population going,  spreading out more towards the bottom and fewer towards the top and the middle is shrinking,” Moreno told Chicago's NPR affiliate radio station. “That’s what you’re seeing that rage and that disgust.”

THEN AGAIN, MORENO is a product of Wicker Park, which isn’t the youthful trendsetter neighborhood any longer, but still has certain types of people living there.

It may well be Moreno’s neighbors comprising a large share of the protest marchers in the events in Chicago.

Which means that Moreno is simply trying to tell his constituents he’s not going to bad-mouth them for their actions, because he wants their votes come the next citywide election cycle in 2015.

The last thing he needs to do is say something silly that could escalate, linger around for a few years and bite him in the nalgas when he runs for re-election just over three years from now.

THAT ALSO IS what likely motivates McCarter of the Illinois state Senate, which is likely what caused him to sponsor a bill that will be considered during the spring of 2012.

His issue is adoption, particularly the fact that changes in state law that respect gay people as individuals have had the effect of cutting out of the process religious-based groups that used to be used by the state to actually place orphaned and abused children into adoptive and foster homes respectively.

Catholic Charities still has a legal battle pending on behalf of rural Illinois dioceses, although the courts thus far have ruled that the church doesn’t have a right to state contracts – and must follow the state’s rules if they want to receive them.

So McCarter’s bill, according to the State Journal-Register newspaper of Springfield, Ill., essentially would create an exception to the rules for religious-based organizations that want to be in the child-welfare basis. They can still be involved, even if they don't want to acknowledge gay couples as legitimate possibilities for children in need of a home.

IN SHORT, McCARTER wants to change the rules – which will be perceived well by those people who have a hang-up about the fact that the state is not siding with them on this issue.

It’s very likely that this bill will get killed off somewhere in the process. McCarter’s introduction of it may well be its highlight. It probably will NOT become law.

But I doubt that McCarter cares. Because what something like this is about is appealing to certain potential voters and trying to get them to be, if not supportive, then not openly hostile towards his political existence.

This is about McCarter trying to get himself re-elected by claiming he’s standing up to “those” people. And as for the gay rights activists who are calling this particular bill “homophobic,” he probably figures those people would never have voted for him anyway.

SO HE DOESN’T lose much of anything. In fact, it might even bolster his profile just enough that he gets a bit more statewide support from the organizations that have their pet issues and are willing to dole out some campaign cash to their potential allies.

Which may also be Moreno’s reasoning. Being one of the few to publicly back the Wall Street protests makes him stand out. At the very least, McCarter and Moreno aren’t just anonymous political schmoes.

  -30-

On way to Gov. Quinn, I respect Meeks’ civil union opposition. Even if he’s wrong

Unless Gov. Pat Quinn does a complete 180-degree flip, Illinois is on the verge of becoming the sixth state in this nation that allows gay couples the legal concept of a “civil union” officially recognized by the state.



MEEKS: Waiting for his epiphany

For just one day after the Illinois House of Representatives gave its approval to the concept, which would give a legal recognition to gay couple pairings and many of the same legal perks that a traditional married couple gets by saying “I do,” the state Senate also voted for the measure.

QUINN HAS ALREADY said he will sign it into law. So it is just a matter of time before the measure becomes law in Illinois – and all those people who last month voted for William Brady for governor will gnash their teeth in disgust.

Now some have made much out of the fact that the bulk of the support for this measure came from Democratic legislators; in the state Senate, only one Republican (state Sen./Treasurer-elect Dan Rutherford, R-Chenoa) backed the bill.

But the aspect that catches my attention is the vote of Rev./state Sen./mayoral hopeful James Meeks, D-Chicago. He voted “no,” which isn’t a shock to anyone who has paid attention to his legislative record – which reflects the beliefs of a conservative preacher who deep down thinks all those “homos” are “going to Hell” for their behavior.

It had been noted that Meeks was trying to use his political clout to get the Illinois House to kill the bill so that he’d never have to vote for it in the Senate. But that didn’t happen, which had some people speculating that he might very well vote “yes” for political reasons.

HE WON’T WANT to get the gay rights activists all worked up against his mayoral aspirations, according to that speculation.

But it all turned out to be a moot point. Meeks wound up having to cast a vote after all. And he stayed a “no.”

Just prior to the debate on Wednesday, Meeks said he wouldn’t change his stance because he figured there was nothing to gain. He figured people would dump all over his mayoral aspirations for casting a vote for political reasons, and would assume he wasn’t being sincere.

For all the times I have seen political people cast horrid votes to provide themselves with political cover (such as then-Sen. Barack Obama voting in favor of federal funding for construction of barricades along the U.S./Mexico border), it was nice to see someone stick by their beliefs and be willing to take a hit.

NOT THAT I admire Meeks’ vote itself. It is horrid. The only thing that keeps me from being totally appalled is the fact that I know he will pay for this come Election Day. If not on Feb. 22, then on April 5.

For Meeks has probably clinched the votes of every single member of his South Side-based church congregation, which numbers in the thousands. I’m sure those people will talk to their friends and get them to cast a ballot for Meeks.

But I think it ensures that Meeks gets the support of absolutely nobody else in his bid for mayor of Chicago. Which means his campaign is about to fall into the trap of people like Tim Evans and Danny Davis – who lost mayoral bids because no one outside of the African-American voter bloc took them seriously.

Considering that this mayoral election has several African-American candidates seeking to split the city’s black vote, he won’t even be that dominant. Could Carol Moseley-Braun’s campaign wind up being the big winner out of Meeks’ gaffe?

SO NOW WE’RE number six – right up there following Vermont, California, Connecticut, New Jersey and New Hampshire, along with the province of Quebec and the Federal District of Mexico (a.k.a., Mexico City).

Those few people who spoke out against civil unions during the two days of legislative debate (most lawmakers kept quiet and merely voted “no”) were correct when they said this was a significant change for the state – not that it is a bad change.

It is an acceptance of people by our state’s segment of society that is overdue. Considering that I still remember being on hand at the Statehouse back in 1996 when the then-GOP-dominated Legislature persisted with passing a bill that clarified that gay marriage is illegal in Illinois (a law that remains on our books), I’d say the actions of the past two days show a lack of mean-spiritedness on our Legislature’s part.

McCARTER: Can't Ill. multi-task?

Perhaps the day comes when we will see that particular redundant law repealed.

SO WHEN PEOPLE like state Sen. Kyle McCarter, R-Lebanon, tries to claim that our state is being absurd by considering this issue at a time when there are budgetary problems to be dealt with, I can’t help but think he’s going to wind up looking like a short-sighted dink some five decades from now when people look back on this.

Even Meeks, I’m sure, will experience an epiphany someday and wish he could take this particular vote back.

  -30-