Moving forward with a runway expansion plan that would nearly double the number of flights at O’Hare without adding a single new gate would further compound delays at O’Hare rather than solve the problem, as planes would have to spend hours on the tarmac waiting for a gate to come available, the senator explained.

"Proponents of O’Hare expansion have entered the theater of the absurd by maintaining that they can add 78 percent more runway capacity and nearly double flights at O’Hare but build no new gates," said Fitzgerald, citing reports today that the airlines still consider runway expansion a top priority even as they are backing out of World Gateway. "How the heck are they going to deplane more passengers with no new gates? Are they going to have people sit on the tarmac until they expire?"

Even Mayor Daley appears to recognize the inextricable link between more runway capacity and additional gate space. He is quoted in the Chicago Sun-Times today: "If you don’t fix the terminals, how are people going to get there then?"

Fitzgerald said that Senator Durbin, Mayor Daley, the airlines, and the collective proponents of expansion must answer the fundamental question of how they can add 78 percent new runway capacity without the gates if they continue to maintain their public posture that O’Hare should be expanded. Fitzgerald called on Mayor Daley to answer the question of whether the cost of new terminals and gates will ultimately be incorporated into his expansion plan and who will pay for them.

"The O’Hare expansion ‘deal’ is being held together by a series of flimsy fictions, and one after the other they are slowly and publicly beginning to unravel," Fitzgerald said. "This is ridiculous. The airlines cannot even pay salaries, let alone pay for World Gateway, let alone what I believe could be a $15 billion expansion. It is becoming apparent to everyone that you cannot do this project and yet the City answers no questions. These evasions are now a serious dereliction of responsibility to the taxpayers and the public."

Republican Senate Candidate Jim Durkin questioned the motives behind Senator Dick Durbin’s quick condemnation of the 9th Circuit Court ruling that said the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.

“While a member of the House and Senate, Mr. Durbin has had several opportunities to step up and protect our flag and what it represents,” said Durkin. “Time and time again he has voted against these measures.”

Representative Durkin noted several votes his opponent has made against the flag burning ban and his votes against increasing wages and his votes against increasing pay for members of the military.

“My opponent has become an election year super-patriot,” said Durkin. “Unfortunately, when he’s not running for reelection, he has forgotten those who serve this country, and he ignores the majority voice of those who have sacrificed for the flag and want to see it protected.”

To date, 49 state legislatures and 75 percent of the American public support protecting our flag from desecration. Senator Durbin has refused to vote for the amendment and has attempted to trivialize the issue by splitting hairs over the definition of desecration.

“We were founded as a government of the people, by the people and for the people,” said Durkin. “The people of this country have spoken, but their voices have fallen on the deaf ears of Mr. Durbin.”

Durkin Says Pledge Ruling Reflects Durbin’s Votes For Federal Bench

Republican Senate Candidate Jim Durkin said the ruling by the 9th Circuit Court calling the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional is a reflection of Dick Durbin’s push for a liberal, activist judiciary.

“If my opponent had his way all of our federal courts would be like the 9th Circuit,” said Durkin. “As a member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Durbin has attempted to block any nominees he deems not liberal enough.”

Durkin noted the huge number of vacancies in our federal courts during the Bush administration. Senator Durbin has gone so far as to paint nominee Charles Pickering as a racist in fundraising letters, despite the widespread support for the judge’s record on civil rights from black leaders.

“If you’re not an activist, liberal judge, then Mr. Durbin thinks you’re not fit to serve on the federal bench,” said Durkin. “Never mind the facts, never mind the record, Judge Pickering doesn’t buy into Dick Durbin’s agenda so let’s block his nomination.”

Durkin also cited the emergency shortage of federal judges, a situation that is only being exacerbated by Durbin and his Democratic colleagues refusal to grant nominees a fair hearing. President Bush has had only 43 percent of his nominees confirmed; at this point of President Clinton’s first term, the Republican controlled Senate confirmed 58 percent of his nominees.

“Back then Mr. Durbin and Senator Leahy were calling it a ‘crisis’ that only 58 percent had been confirmed,” Said Durkin. “Now they’ve created a greater crisis, and their answer is to smear the reputations of qualified jurists.

*******************************************************
*State FOP admits legislative retribution led to Democratic endorsement

CHICAGO, IL – Today at a press conference in Springfield, the president of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police admitted that fear of legislative retribution factored into the union’s decision to endorse the entire slate of Democrat candidates who have minimal law enforcement and crime fighting experience.

“It’s truly a sad day for law enforcement in our state when the leaders of the state’s Fraternal Order of Police are intimidated by Chicago machine politics,” said Illinois Republican Party Chairman Gary MacDougal. “Combined, our statewide ticket has over 50 years of law enforcement and crime-fighting experience. The Democratic candidates have little law enforcement and prosecutorial background, and in fact, their attorney general candidate has never prosecuted a case. Clearly, this was not a very thoughtful endorsement.”

The hollowness of the endorsement is underscored by a survey of the rank-and-file members taken by FOP leadership. The majority of the rank-and-file members, who returned their surveys, indicated they supported Attorney General Jim Ryan, the Republican candidate for governor.

*******************************************************

*Birkett calls on Madigan to engage in debate on public corruption

GLEN ELLYN – Illinois Attorney General candidate Joe Birkett Wednesday asked Lisa Madigan to join him in a unique, single-issue debate about public corruption – an issue both candidates say is a top one in this year’s race.

Birkett again called on his opponent to back up her recent statements that she is independent from her father, House Speaker Michael Madigan, by taking action now to show she is serious in her claims that she is her own candidate.
Birkett said that a public debate about corruption would give voters the opportunity to hear from Lisa Madigan how she will demonstrate her independence from her father.

“People understand that Mike Madigan is her father and she loves him,” Birkett said. “What they need to see is how she will prove her public independence from him, both during this campaign and in office, if elected.”
Lisa Madigan, however has not taken Birkett up on his offer to a debate solely on corruption.

"We’re disappointed that Sen. Madigan is so far unwilling to participate in a unique, single-issue debate regarding public corruption," Birkett said. "Voters of this state would benefit greatly to hear the two candidates discuss what they have called the top issue in this campaign.

Last week Birkett’s opponent said that she would be willing to prosecute the “serious allegations” against her father, either personally or through an independent prosecutor. She repeatedly has said she is independent from her father, but documents
and news accounts show that she has not been free from her father’s enormous influence through hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions and by Mike Madigan’s powerful reach.

The state Democratic Party has contributed more than $450,000 to her campaign through June 30. Much of that help came from former state employees who received taxpayer-funded bonuses that are now under federal investigation. In the past, Lisa Madigan has said the bonuses were legal and that she had no control over them.

Birkett again called on Madigan to reimburse the state for the portion of bonuses awarded to people who went to work on her campaign – about $50,000 – and announce that the state Democratic Party, which her father chairs, will not be involved in raising or contributing any more money for her campaign.

*******************************************************

Former Sears CEO named finance chairman for State GOP

CHICAGO, IL – Edward A. Brennan, a 39-year Sears, Roebuck and Co. veteran, has been named finance chairman of the Illinois Republican Party.

“We are fortunate to have someone with a strong corporate background and ties to the business community join our team,” said Illinois Republican Party Chairman Gary MacDougal. “Ed Brennan will play a pivotal role in helping our party raise the necessary funds to get out the message of our experienced and accomplished slate of candidates.”

“Like me, Mr. Brennan recognizes that Democratic control of the Legislature and the Executive Mansion would be disastrous for the business climate of our state,” MacDougal added. “All across the state, Rod Blagojevich has been making promises to the trial lawyers and union bosses in exchange for their money and support. If elected, he’ll make their wish lists a priority in the first 100 days.”

*******************************************************

Family Taxpayers Network & the Illinois Republican Party invite you to a
Reception on Monday Evening, August 26, 2002 at 6:00 p.m. at the
COLUMBIA YACHT CLUB 111 North Lake Shore Drive Chicago, IL 60601
Meet State Chairman Gary MacDougal & help shape the Party’s future.
Host: Jack Roeser
Honorary Chairmen: Congressman Phil Crane / Sen Pate Philip
Sen Ed Petka / Sen Steve Rauschenberger / Sen Peter Roskam
-------------------------------------------------------
$100.00 per ticket or Show Your Support At One Of The Following Levels:
PLATINUM: $25,000 / GOLD: $10,000 / SILVER: $5,000 / BRONZE: $1,000
-------------------------------------------------------
Last minute RSVPs still being accepted by phone at 847/428-0363
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT FTN AT 847.428.0363

But I'd be wrong. The United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women just might be passed by two-thirds of the Senate. Unless more people hear about it.

The treaty, written by feminists, was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1979 and signed by Jimmy Carter in 1980. While it applies to some other countries, it has lain fallow in the Senate for 20 years. But Vermont's Jim Jeffords switched parties, Democrats took control of the Senate, and on July 30 Delaware's Joe Biden rammed it through the Foreign Relations Committee that he chairs. Muskie's memo, which noted that the treaty fails to take into account ''the division between the state and federal governments of the United States,'' was ignored. Now comes a push for ratification. And it's time to reveal what the high-sounding but flawed document would do.

First, because of its vague language, it would give feminists an entree to rewrite all family law in the United States. Certainly it could well negate any abortion limitations now on the books. Because the treaty obliges nations to legalize abortion as a woman's right, if the Senate passes a partial-birth abortion ban as the House has done, these actions could well be adjudged by the treaty as null and void.

Article 1 of the treaty would ban discrimination against women ''in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil and any other field.'' Thus it would lead to lawsuits against churches, youth fraternal organizations and any private social club extant. Article 2 eliminates discrimination against women ''by any person, organization or enterprise.'' Sounds good, but it would supersede any U.S. law concerning the military, installing without voter consent the feminist ideal of a gender-neutral armed force.

Article 3 would mandate that the United States pass new federal laws in ''social, economic and cultural fields'' to fit the prescription of the treaty. Article 5 would mandate that the federal government ensure ''elimination of any stereotyped concept of the roles of men and women at all levels and in all forms of education . . . by the revision of textbooks and . . . teaching methods.'' With one mighty sweep, the entire educational fabric of the United States would be reworked without parental or school board say.

In a stunning attack on women, Article 11 holds what it calls ''the right of free choice of profession and employment,'' including voluntary prostitution. Under the treaty, committees of feminists are set up to monitor ''progress.'' The treaty set up a committee of 23 to implement it. The committee has called upon China to ''decriminalize prostitution.'' It urged Germany ''to recognize that trafficked women and girls are victims of human rights violations in need of protection''--expressing the concern that ''although they are legally obliged to pay taxes, prostitutes still do not enjoy the protection of law and social law.'' With respect to Greece, the treaty's report declared that ''while noting positively the fact that prostitution is decriminalized and instead is dealt with in a regulatory manner, the Committee is concerned that inadequate structures exist to ensure compliance with regulatory framework.'' Belgium was assailed for not setting quotas for women; it meekly responded by reserving 50 percent of all candidate posts for women.

Since seven of the 12 committee Republicans voted no--including moderates Dick Lugar of Indiana and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska--it is possible that the treaty will fall short of the two-thirds vote needed for passage, given that Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska and John Breaux of Louisiana usually are conservative. But the time is at hand for President Bush, who ''unsigned'' the Rome treaty creating an international criminal court, to defend U.S. sovereignty once again by speaking in eloquent opposition to a Senate vote this fall.

Liberals and big media will trumpet that the treaty is requisite for ''women's rights.'' It's not. Indeed, before it even comes to the floor, Bush should ''unsign'' it. It would be a tragedy, indeed a finis, to our way of life if this abomination of a treaty were allowed to pass and thus be open to liberal lawyers for interpretation. We would repent this awful deed at our leisure.

==>Ronald Reagan