Journalist Lynn Vincent recently did an analysis for World magazine, an evangelical publication. Like those in California, Illinois' liberal Democrats are of one mind on education. They are strong adherents of the teachers unions. Illinois has some 50,000 families involved in home-schooling. In California it is now illegal for Californians to home-school their children independently of public schools. The superintendent of public instruction in California is a liberal Democrat who opposes home-schooling and supports ''sensitivity training'' on homosexuality.

There is a difference between tolerance of homosexuals and the ideology that all lifestyles are equally good. In California, it is now state law that all K-12 schoolchildren must be taught to ''appreciate'' various sexual orientations. Public school teachers and counselors are required to identify children with the potential to be ''intolerant'' of homosexuality so that they can be referred for retraining.

School sports teams objecting to homosexual or transsexual behavior may be barred from participating in the state's interscholastic sports. State workers with homosexual partners can receive equivalent benefits for partners at state expense; nonprofit groups such as the Boy Scouts of America may be fined up to $150,000 for refusal to hire homosexuals.

Is this likely to happen in Illinois? Perhaps not. The passion for social change may be uniquely California's. Yet, when a single party takes over control of a state, lawmakers tend to think and work in lockstep. This is particularly true where it regards Richard M. Daley, truly the most powerful mayor in the nation. While he does not imitate his father in serving as chairman of the Cook County Democratic Committee, he goes to the heart of campaigns. He is general chairman of the Rod Blagojevich effort. His brother, John, stands to become the next chairman of the Cook County Board. There is enormous power sufficient to cause Illinois to bend to the Daley will. A total sweep of all state elective offices would merely make that power greater.

At present, many conservatives and Republicans are tempted to either stay home, to voice displeasure with Jim Ryan, the GOP nominee, or to vote for Libertarian Cal Skinner. When reminded that Skinner cannot win and that staying home only intensifies the winning margin that the Democrats might accrue, there is a kind of shrug on the part of conservative voters. Many are refusing to vote for Jim Ryan and believe that four years of top-to-bottom Democratic rule will enable a new breed of fresh conservatives to take over the Republican Party.

Nobody denies that a new breed should regenerate the GOP. But if the projected Democratic sweep materializes, Illinois may be lost for a generation as a viable two-party state. Sen. Peter Fitzgerald could be the last Republican standing, and could go down in 2004 along with any prospect that Illinois could support the presidential candidacy of George W. Bush.

To those who say Illinois can't become another California, I say: Stay home, nurse your political scabs and watch for a strident liberal era to take over your life.

This bipartisan approach is stalled because some Senate Democrats are putting the special interests of a few federal government employee unions over the security of the American people. Their proposal would strip President Bush of the authority every President since John F. Kennedy has had to suspend collective bargaining agreements because of national security. Their proposal also ties management of the new agency up in needless red tape, regulation and
bureaucracy; just when maximum flexibility is needed to get the department set up and operating.

Here are just a few examples of why the president needs this authority and management flexibility:

Unions representing some Customs Service employees objected to requiring inspectors at U.S. ports of entry to wear radiation detectors. They only backed down because the President could exempt the inspectors from collective bargaining.
The Customs Service wanted to pick its best agents to send to foreign ports to inspect cargoes before they set sail for U.S. ports. Their union objected, saying the union should pick who went, not management.
The Border Patrol has special tactical teams that deploy at a moment's notice to meet threats. Their union insisted on requiring the Border Patrol to ensure that "suitable eating places, drug stores, barber shops, places of worship, cleaning establishments, and similar places necessary for the sustenance, health, or comfort of the employee."
Will the country be better protected if a few federal employee unions can stop the government from doing all that is necessary to secure our borders and our country?

Will the country be better served if this President is stripped of an important authority that every President since JFK has had?

Will America really be safer if the President is denied the management flexibility granted every other President who’s had the responsibility of merging disparate agencies into a new department, like was done with Health and Human Services, Education, and Energy?

We need a single homeland security agency that:

Protects the President's existing National Security authority over the federal workforce;
Gives the new Secretary of homeland security the flexibility and freedom to manage to meet new threats;
Protects every employee of the new department against illegal discrimination, and builds a culture in which federal employees know they are keeping their fellow citizens safe through their service to America.
President Bush has made it clear that he will not sign homeland security legislation that puts special interests over effectively protecting the American people, saying:

"I asked Congress to give me the flexibility necessary to be able to deal with the true threats of the 21st century by being able to move the right people to the right place at the right time, so we can better assure America we're doing everything possible. The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people. I will not accept a Department of Homeland Security that does not allow this President, and future Presidents, to better keep the American people secure."
President George Bush, September 23, 2002

MARCH FOR EDUCATIONwith Special Guest:
JIM DURKIN, Candidate for U.S. Senate
September 28, 2002
10:00 AM - 11:30 AM
Daley Plaza, Chicago
(Corner of Clark St. & Washington St.)
For more information, visit http://www.ilryp.org/ryp-il_005.htm

The march is designed to raise awareness, and rally support for school accountability, a virtues curriculum, parental involvement and greater
choice in education.

As we are expecting some press coverage for this event, it is important that our members come out strong and show their support for better education and
for our next U.S. Senator from Illinois - Jim Durkin.

Late arrivals are of course welcome - but so that we can have a general idea of how many to expect, please let us know by return e-mail here at
ryp-il@prodigy.net if you plan to attend. And please help us spread the word! Whole families and especially children are of course encouraged to
attend; after all, this March is really about them.

We also have a nice flyer in Word format that we would be happy to e-mail you with all of the March information. If you can help distribute it,
please let me know and I'll send you a copy asap.

Doug Ibendahl
Republican Young Professionals (RYP)
312/648-0061
www.ilryp.org
ryp-il@prodigy.net

But now, we're about to enter the nineties, and some things have changed. Younger parents aren't sure that an unambivalent appreciation of America is the right thing to teach modern children. And as for those who create the popular culture, well-grounded patriotism is no longer the style. Our spirit is back, but we haven't reinstitutionalized it. We've got to do a better job of getting across that America is freedom - freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise....
So, we've got to teach history based not on what's in fashion but what's important...
If we forget what we did, we won't know who we are.

==>Ronald Reagan-Farewell Address to the Nation