extreme_jimmylee_e994961eee4c707e33a3e3d5cc29cfd3
 
  • Ebony Tillman PR

Chicago Tribune's US Senate Q&A proves Tillman is the most conservative candidate on the ticket


On June 8, 2022, the Chicago Tribune editorial board described Jimmy Lee Tillman II as the "most conservative candidate on the ticket" that is "closely aligned with former President Donald Trump".


Tillman is a historian and publisher, the founder and president of the Martin Luther King Republicans, and an Academy fellow with the Heritage Foundation, He is also active with the America First Policy Institute and Black Voices for Trump


After a review of the answers, websites, and public comments of candidates in the seven-man race for the Illinois GOP US Senate nomination, the mainstream newspaper chose the establishment's darling candidate for their endorsement because of her deep connections in the state's party, her moderate views on the issues, and her refusal to question the results of the 2020 election.


Tillman said he was not concerned about the endorsement because his support in the Primary is coming from the grassroots MAGA community.

"The Primary will prove that Illinois is MAGA. Republican voters will reject the establishment's candidate and send Jimmy Lee to DC because the Senate is the key to uniting our Country. Illinoisans want to return to the America First policies that lifted all boats. My campaign has the right message that I can join the MAGA community with the Black conservative community in Cook County for a victory in November. If the Illinois GOP want to win, they'll put Tillman in. "

Below are the Q&A from the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board.

Do you believe the response from the U.S. and its allies to help Ukraine defend Vladimir Putin's invasion has been fulsome enough? If yes, please explain why you believe that, and if no, please explain what else you would do beyond the current administration's response.


While I agree sanctions are a strategic tool necessary to curb Putin, we must apply them carefully as they may cut both ways. It is essential to weigh all the effects as we move forward with sanctions because multiple energy sources - natural gas, coal, oil, uranium, and enrichment services, have different market dynamics and pressure points.


Energy exports are Russia's primary source of state revenue, and they depend on them for political power in Europe. Equally, Europe depends on Russia to supply its heat, power, and transportation energy. In 2019, Russia gave 41% of the EU's natural gas and 27% of its oil. This relationship is why Russia has run roughshod for the past decades. America, however, only receives 8% of its oil and none of its natural gas from Russia, so cutting off this revenue source can send a clear political message.


We must be honest about the cost. When we disrupt supply, it will spike up the prices of globally traded energy commodities. That will be a problem for Illinois' businesses, farmers, and hard-working families. These higher energy prices will benefit Russia, which can sell on the global market. Be reminded that China is a significant customer of Russian natural gas and the largest importer of Russian oil. These two countries have supposedly signed a contract for a whopping 100 million tons of Russian coal over the next few years.


Europe has to step up. It must get a grip on its energy security and fix its energy and climate policies that have needlessly rejected proven technologies, like fracking. Europe has also taxed or eliminated coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear energy. Reducing domestic production of usable energy while subsidizing irregular resources has opened Europe to increases in energy prices and greater risk to their energy markets and political independence.


The increased demand for energy worldwide will not end soon. An intelligent approach would be to couple the energy sanctions with policies focused on increasing energy production in America and abroad, increasing supply. If we flood the market with reliable and affordable energy, this will weaken the Russian energy revenue source.


Congress should pass legislation to waive the Jones Act to allow ships flagged by NATO allies to help provide energy between U.S. ports. They should also take additional actions to end regulations that increase the cost of consumption, delivery, exploration, financing, and production of conventional energy. A policy to hold immediate lease sales on federal lands and waters for coal, natural gas, oil, and critical minerals should be coupled with an American ban on Russian petroleum products and crude oil imports.


Even if these policy reforms don't have an immediate impact on supply, they will send an important political message to Putin and the energy markets for investors to finance energy exploration and production here at home.


There are concerns that, in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, China could align with Russia in a new world order that revives a Cold War dynamic. What do you think the U.S. should do to prevent that from happening, particularly from the standpoint of America’s policies toward China?


Because of Biden's horrible foreign policy, Russia and China have already formed an alignment. These two countries have supposedly signed a contract for 100 million tons of Russian coal over the next few years.


In the meantime, we must defend American economic interests from the many threats posed by China, such as intellectual property theft and espionage. We must continue supporting the strength and credibility of our regional alliance and continue working with our allies and trading partners to build collective action addressing economic challenges. Lastly, but not least, America must help defend Hong Kong and Taiwan against Communist China's economic and political freedom threats.


All signs point to Vladimir Putin remaining a hostile threat to the U.S. and the West for the foreseeable future. What policy shifts do you think the U.S. should make to gird itself and the West from a Putin-led Russia, both short-term and long-term?


In the short term, America must continue solidarity with European allies on sanctions for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We must support the construction of the Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline and the Southern Gas Corridor project, while opposing the construction of the Nord Stream II Pipeline, that increases Europe’s dependency on Russian gas. We also must establish a permanent U.S. military presence in the Baltic region.


America must lead in building the deterrence and prosperity that can become the cornerstone of peace in the transatlantic world. In the long term, we must stop Russian aggression against NATO members and minimize any negative Chinese influence in Europe. We should negotiate and ratify a strong free trade area with Brittan and help to improve European energy security. America and our European allies must also build upon the progress of the Three Seas Initiative.


Soaring inflation has become one of the nation’s most pressing concerns. What should Washington do to rein in runaway inflation, and as a senator, what specific measures would you propose?


I would take a page out of our recent history. When America faced inflation at this level we restricted federal spending and reduced the budget deficit, cut the federal workforce and eliminated government waste, and got rid of needless regulations and brought back more competition to the American economy.


More specifically, I would propose ending the subsidization of government-sponsored enterprises and Federal Reserve mortgage-backed securities purchases that price middle class Americans out of owning a home. I would also propose reducing the costs of job creation, business formation and family formation by wiping out destructive regulations and reducing the tax burden.


America can lower consumer prices if we overturn crony policies like giveaways to Big Labor bosses through the Davis-Bacon Act, the federal sugar subsidy program, electric vehicle subsidy programs, the war on domestic fossil fuels, tough shipping regulations, and taxing imports.


I would also oppose the Federal Reserve money printing to finance deficit spending for the next wave of "Build Back Better."


The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently concluded that the world is running out of time to stave off the most devastating consequences of global warming. Legislatively, what would be your approach toward preventing global warming from further endangering the world’s future?


Even as global CO2 emissions have gotten higher, warming has leveled out. Most scientists would agree that the Earth has experienced some warming over the past century, but there is very little agreement on how much is caused by human activity or if warming is even harmful. Because the United States represents only a portion of global greenhouse gas emissions, the whole world would have to basically change how it consumes energy to make any effect on global temperatures. The most significant improvements in clean energy use and energy efficiency have not come about because of government command and control. Instead, these advances have unfolded due to deregulation, open markets, and greater degrees of dynamic trade.


My approach to the climate change issue would be to reject carbon taxes, stop regulation of greenhouse gases and end the use of social cost of carbon in government cost-benefit analyses. I would recommend America withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). I would recommend we withdraw the EPA endangerment finding on greenhouse gas emissions and address the uncertainties in climate science. I would also address climate-related infrastructure vulnerabilities through site- and situation-specific analysis and spending.


The federal deficit in 2021 was $2.8 trillion. Describe what you believe are the three best ways to make a substantive reduction in the federal deficit. Please be specific in your answer.


When looking into the federal budget we must first separate the core constitutional functions and true national priorities from feel-good programs. We should leave matters of education, infrastructure, natural resource management, and welfare primarily to localities, states, and the private sector. We should reform the major entitlement programs ( Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and welfare). Lastly, but not least, we should also review Federal Reserve policy and check the central bank’s discretion to reduce any harmful regulations so to enable entrepreneurs and businesses to expand the economy and improve opportunities for all Americans.


Immigration reform has eluded this country for decades. What would you do to fix immigration in America? Also, do you support the DREAM Act?


To implement effective immigration reform, we must promote legal immigration, stop illegal immigration, and secure our border from drugs, human trafficking, and the cartels that operate on both sides. We must also restore the Trump's administration Remain in Mexico program and the safe third country requirements and agreements. We must return to building the border wall.


We must return to an immigration and border security policy that is America First. We should keep in place Title 42 until COVID is no longer a global pandemic threat and increase employment verification to make sure employers hire only work-authorized employees. Additionally, we should enforce existing immigration laws, including deportations, stop welcoming and admitting unaccompanied children into the U.S., and end "catch-and-release."


No, I do not.


At least 19 states have passed laws restricting access to voting. Many other states have introduced similar legislation. Do you believe such laws help or hinder the electoral process. Please explain your answer.


Each state has the right to determine its election laws and the federal government should not interfere. This is why I am against laws like S1, a bill that changes voter access. I am against S1 because, under this bill, the federal government will be transferred massive amounts of election-related powers from local governments. This 'poison chalice' bill will interfere with local governments and their citizens' ability to participate in the political process, secure the integrity of elections, determine voter qualifications, ensure the accuracy of voter registration rolls, and establish the congressional district boundary lines for elections. I am against this attempt to create shady electoral practices that push and permit lousy behavior, like fake voter registrations, ballot harvesting, double voting, and ineligible voting.


If you were asked to vote on the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, how would you vote? Please explain your rationale.


I would vote against it because it violates the basic principles of federalism and is the latest attempt by the Democrat party to tamper with the very good Voting Rights Act of 1965, using the name of John Lewis. The VRA is permanent, applies nationwide, and can be enforced by the DOJ as well as private parties. This bill will re-establish the unconstitutional Section 5 and imposed federal control over elections.


Do you believe there was fraud committed in the 2020 presidential election, and do you believe the results of that election should have been overturned? Please explain your answer. And a secondary element to this question: do you support the proposed Electoral Count Modernization Act, which aims to prevent another Jan. 6-like attempt to subvert the legitimate outcome of a presidential election?


I am from Chicago, where elections are stolen all the time. There is a documentary with videos, data, and interviews that suggest something occurred in the election, so I must wait to see what happens before I can comment with certainty.


No, I do not support the proposed Electoral Count Modernization Act. This bill's objective is to avoid the constitutional amendment process and maneuver the Electoral College out of existence. The founders designed our system of electing the President very carefully, and it has worked successfully for over 200 years.


Violent crime remains one of this country’s most intractable scourges, particularly in cities like Chicago. Solutions at the local level are critical, of course, but Washington can also play a vital role. Please explain your strategy for legislation at the federal level that can help combat endemic violent crime in cities like Chicago.


While always protecting the 2nd Amendment, we must put time, energy, and effort into addressing the primary problems that produce gun violence, and then we will get a much safer nation. These efforts must include investing in America's mental health infrastructure. Two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides every year, a remarkable number of mental health-related deaths. America must be investing in mental health and limited interventions for people who are a danger to themselves or others. We must also train communities and local officials to seriously take violence and mental health threats. Using tested anti-gang violence programs, investing in communities to create stable families, investing in education, and creating economic opportunities that lead people away from drug and gang-related violence and promote prosperity are better strategies.


Also, funding the Border Wall will help to stop MS-13 gang and curb the flow of illegal guns and drugs.


In Illinois, an exodus of people and jobs continues to imperil the state’s future economic outlook. Solutions must be undertaken at the local and state level, but what would you propose at the federal level to help turn back this trend?


The U.S. Senate proposes and considers new laws, approves or rejects presidential nominations, provides advice and consent on international treaties, and serves as the high court for impeachment trials. Each state has unique needs, and the federal government must allow them to choose their destiny without interference.


Sum up why should voters nominate you and not your opponent(s)? (Please limit this to policy and approach, not a biography recitation.)


Republican voters should nominate Jimmy Lee Tillman II for US Senate because I am a policy-driven conservative and a strong advocate for the Constitution. I am the only candidate that can beat Tammy Duckworth in Cook County by successfully delivering the American First policies message to the Black community.


285 views0 comments