CHICAGO - Local chapters of the League of Women Voters of Illinois will host community protests and rallies in five cities across Illinois tomorrow, March 4. The goal is to bring people together in solidarity during the president's address to Congress on Tuesday.
Donald Trump will deliver the first joint congressional address of his second presidency on Tuesday at 9 p.m. EST. While not a State of the Union address, the president is expected to announce his goals for the year and accomplishments as he starts his second term before a packed House chamber.
LWVIL says the events around the state are being held to "offer a peaceful and unified space to come together for the health of our democracy, the future of our nation, and the well-being of all its people."
Gatherings will be held in Batavia, downtown Chicago, Naperville, Rockford, and at the Courthouse Plaza in Peoria.
"Defending democracy is our mission," Becky Simon, president of the League of Women Voters of Illinois, said in a release today, stressing an "urgent" need for peaceful protest during this administration. "The League’s spirit to act and fight for our democracy is exactly the courage we need to defend our constitutional republic."
Kathy Cortez, LWVIL vice president for issues and advocacy, noted that "The League has been defending democracy for 105 years, and we are just getting started."
League of Women Voters of Illinois protests will take place on Tuesday, March 4, at the following locations:
Batavia: 7:30 pm, Calvary Episcopal Church, 222 S Batavia Ave, Batavia, IL 60510
Chicago: 7:30 pm, Federal Plaza, 50 S. Adams St, Chicago, IL 60604
Rockford: 7:00 pm, Rockford City Hall, 425 East State Street, Rockford, 61104
Naperville: 4:30 pm, Washington Street Overpass by 5th Avenue Train Station, 105 E 4th Avenue, Naperville, IL 60540
Peoria: 7:30 pm, Peoria County Courthouse Plaza, 324 Main Street, Peoria IL 61602
by Jacque Trahan
In 2010, the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision redefined American politics. By granting corporations the same free speech rights as individuals, it allowed them to spend unlimited sums on elections. While proponents called it a victory for free expression, it has instead created a dangerous paradox: a system I call “corporation communism.”
At first glance, the term might seem contradictory. After all, corporations are synonymous with free-market capitalism, while communism is the antithesis of that system. But beneath the surface, there’s an unsettling resemblance.
Much like the centralized control of resources in communist regimes, corporations have amassed outsized power, dominating markets, influencing legislation, and concentrating wealth. This centralization doesn’t reflect the competition capitalism promises; instead, it mirrors the monopolistic tendencies of an authoritarian state.
As President Theodore Roosevelt once said, “The corporation is the creature of the State, and it must be held to strict accountability to the people.” Roosevelt—a Republican—championed trust-busting because he understood that unchecked corporate power was a direct threat to democracy. His wisdom is more relevant now than ever.
The Citizens United decision unleashed billions in corporate spending, turning elections into auctions. Candidates no longer vie for votes alone; they chase dollars from the wealthiest donors. Policies that serve public interests—affordable healthcare, climate action, workers’ rights—are sidelined for those favoring corporate profits.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, warned during the Great Depression: "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself." Today, corporate lobbying often overwhelms the will of the people, making FDR’s cautionary words painfully prophetic.
This system fosters what I call "economic elitism," where a handful of powerful entities dictate the rules. From healthcare and energy to tech and agriculture, monopolies have reduced competition, stifling innovation and raising costs for everyday Americans.
Why Call It 'Corporation Communism'?
Though the term may sound provocative, the parallels are striking:
Centralized Power: Just as a communist state controls resources, corporations dominate entire sectors, from Big Tech to Big Pharma.
Loss of Choice: Consolidation through mergers limits competition, leaving consumers fewer options—whether in broadband providers or news outlets.
Suppression of Dissent: Employees who speak out often face retaliation, while public critics risk lawsuits or smear campaigns.
Reverse Redistribution: Wealth is siphoned upward, enriching executives and shareholders, much like the privileges enjoyed by elites in authoritarian regimes.
The Threat to Democracy
Unchecked corporate power corrodes democratic values. Voters’ voices are drowned out by well-funded lobbying and attack ads. Local businesses are crushed under monopolistic practices, reducing entrepreneurship—the backbone of a healthy economy.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, another Republican, once warned in his farewell address: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence… by the military-industrial complex." His words echo today, as corporate influence extends far beyond the military into nearly every aspect of policymaking.
Overturn Citizens United: Campaign finance reform is essential to restore fair elections.
Break Up Monopolies: Enforce antitrust laws to dismantle corporate giants and promote competition.
Demand Transparency: Require corporations to disclose political contributions and lobbying activities.
Empower Workers: Strengthen unions and worker protections to ensure fair wages and working conditions.
A Call to Action
The promise of capitalism is opportunity for all—not unchecked power for a few. By framing this issue as "corporation communism," we reveal the irony of a system that cloaks monopolistic control in the rhetoric of freedom.
Leaders across political lines—Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Eisenhower—recognized the dangers of unchecked power, whether from corporations or governments. Their words remind us that democracy thrives only when power is accountable to the people.
It’s time to reclaim democracy from those who would buy it out from under us. Let’s make sure our government answers to the people—not corporations.
Based in Lafayette, Louisiana, Jacque Trahan loves to travel. "I save most of my money for this alone, concerts, festivals, video games with friends, I stream from time to time (but need to update my pc), and enhancing my coding skills." Jacque hopes to become a data engineer.
During the 2016 election, only 20 papers endorsed Donald Trump's candidacy. Hillary Clinton received 243 endorsements from daily newspapers. Just six weekly papers endorsed Trump’s first run, while Clinton received support from 148. However, the endorsements had no measurable effect on the outcome. Clinton, who lost the election in the Electoral College, had 2.9 million more votes nationwide than her opponent, a margin of 2.1% of total votes cast.
"In 2016, nearly every newspaper in America endorsed Hillary Clinton. Obviously, the endorsements of Clinton did not lead to her victory, but it was a reflection of a widespread belief that Trump was unfit for office," David Mindich told Temple Now. Mindich is a professor of journalism at Temple’s Klein College of Media and Communication.
Last week, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, two of America’s most prominent newspapers, broke with the longstanding tradition of endorsing a presidential candidate. The owners of both newspapers forbade their editorial staffs from selecting and endorsing the candidate they deemed best suited to lead the United States.
Newspaper endorsements of political candidates date back to before the 1830s. Newspapers were once partisan tools owned or funded by politicians themselves to disseminate political views and give endorsements. That changed with the rise of the independent press.
"After the commercial press in the United States was born in the 1830s, newspapers started to become independent. The leading newspaper of the so-called penny press era was the New York Herald, run by an editor named James Gordon Bennett," Mindich said. "From the inception of his paper to the American Civil War, Bennett endorsed candidates from both major parties. Endorsements became a regular feature of independent American newspapers."
Melita Garza, associate professor and director of graduate studies in journalism at the University of Illinois, said, "There is little empirical evidence that these presidential endorsements swayed readers to vote one way or another."
There is speculation that C-suite executives feared backlash and subscription cancellations from readers angered by a particular endorsement. Garza notes that journalists on the ground are ultimately the ones who suffer.
"The only people hurt by the cancellation were the journalists, who probably will face another round of layoffs," she said.
However, another likely reason for the abstinence from endorsements is the increasingly hostile climate created by conservative politicians and their social media agents. It is rare, if not unheard of, for liberal politicians to threaten media outlets or employees. Meanwhile, Trump has made numerous threats aimed at journalists and publishers. The fear of retaliation if he takes office runs deep not only among the billionaire owners of America’s largest news organizations but also among independent community publications that challenge or criticize him.
In 2022, at a Texas rally, Trump said he would jail reporters and “marry them to a prisoner” if they did not reveal confidential sources for stories he didn’t approve—a clear violation of the First Amendment. He repeated this stance weeks later at a rally in Ohio.
Donald Trump: "The reporter goes to jail, and when the reporter learns that he's going to be married in two days to a certain prisoner..." pic.twitter.com/wvK7Ilrhn9
While newsrooms and editorial boards are often operated as separate departments or even entities within a newspaper, readers may not understand the distinction between an editorial and a news article.
News articles state facts, answering the questions of who, what, when, where, why, and sometimes how. The purpose is to provide a clear, accurate account of an event as observed by the reporter or witnesses.
Editorials (and editorial columns) express opinions and viewpoints—right or wrong—by the publication’s editorial board. The objective is to present a perspective or stance and persuade readers toward that stance. Commentaries have the same purpose but are written by individuals not employed by the paper.
All that said, the editorial staff at The Sentinel agrees that the best candidate to lead the United States into the future would be one not leading a party that threatens the bodily autonomy of women, the freedom of the press, and economic recovery now in full effect. However, we won’t be endorsing either candidate because, as they say, we aren’t the marrying type.
Millions of Democrats went to the polls in state primaries to cast their votes for President Joe Biden. He was elected to represent the Democrat party once again. He didn’t have the official votes of the delegates from the convention but it was a given that he would receive them.
On June 27, Biden debated former President Trump and it didn’t go so well for Biden. He wasn’t his best during that debate and a ground swell of other Democrat leaders forced Biden to withdraw from the race.
How does this make you feel if you voted for him? What happened to the will of the people? What good did it do you to take time off from work to vote? Your vote didn’t mean a thing. It was totally wasted time if you voted for President Joe Biden. A handful of rich celebrities along with Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Robert Schiff, and a few others made the decision.
Suddenly all we are hearing is that Vice President Kamala Harris is the Democrat challenger to Donald Trump. She hasn’t been elected by the delegates which doesn’t even come until the August convention which begins August 19th. A reported hundred million dollars has already been raised and she will likely be nominated. At this point, who does this party have to nominate? We have only a little over three months until the November election.
The brevity of time that Harris has to run as the Democrat nominee is unfair to everybody. It’s unfair to her. She can run as the assumed nominee but she’ s not the nominee yet. It wouldn’t make sense for Trump to debate her at this point because Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer might change their minds and ask someone else to run and pressure Harris to drop out.
Of course, a similar scenario could happen to the Republicans. Trump could have been assassinated and the Republican party would have had to make another choice.
Harris’s major theme that she has going for her in the eyes of millions of Americans is abortion. As many if not more Americans are for abortion than are against abortion. Harris is beating this drum every day wherever she speaks and it could be the single issue that elects her as President. Trump and the Republicans must come up with a plan that resonates with the majority of America’s women and young people or it could be the single issue that brings about his defeat.
There is a lot at stake in the November election. We hope our votes count. We hope that whoever we elect is the one who serves as President. Unlike what just happened with the recent Democrat primaries. Most of us hope that we can get through this election and still be at peace in our country. A house divided cannot stand. Regardless of who is elected it doesn’t do any of us any good to be fighting among ourselves. I hope that we all can resolve to live in peace, talk civil to each other and be good Americans.
He is the author of 13 books including Uncommom Sense, the Spiritual Chocolate series, Grandpa's Store, Minister's Guidebook insights from a fellow minister. His column is published weekly in over 600 publications in all 50 states. The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily representative of any other group or organization. We welcome comments and views from our readers. Submit your letters to the editor or commentary on a current event 24/7 to editor@oursentinel.com.
Trump campaigned on a promise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, or ACA. In the White House, Trump supported a failed effort to do just that. He repeatedly said he would dismantle the health care law in campaign stops and social media posts throughout 2023.
President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, the presumptive Democratic and Republican presidential nominees, shared a debate stage June 27 for the first time since 2020, in a confrontation that — because of strict debate rules — managed to avoid the near-constant interruptions that marred their previous encounters.
Biden, who spoke in a raspy voice and often struggled to articulate his arguments, said at one point that his administration “finally beat Medicare.” Trump, meanwhile, repeated numerous falsehoods, including that Democrats want doctors to be able to abort babies after birth.
Illustration: Richard Duijnstee/Pixabay
Trump took credit for the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision that upended Roe v. Wade and returned abortion policy to states. “This is what everybody wanted,” he said, adding “it’s been a great thing.” Biden’s response: “It’s been a terrible thing.”
In one notable moment, Trump said he would not repeal FDA approval for medication abortion, used last year in nearly two-thirds of U.S. abortions. Some conservatives have targeted the FDA’s more than 20-year-old approval of the drug mifepristone to further restrict access to abortion nationwide.
“The Supreme Court just approved the abortion pill. And I agree with their decision to have done that, and I will not block it,” Trump said. The Supreme Court ruled this month that an alliance of anti-abortion medical groups and doctors lacked standing to challenge the FDA’s approval of the drug. The court’s ruling, however, did not amount to an approval of the drug.
CNN hosted the debate, which had no audience, at its Atlanta headquarters. CNN anchors Jake Tapper and Dana Bash moderated. The debate format allowed CNN to mute candidates’ microphones when it wasn’t their turn to speak.
Our PolitiFact partners fact-checked the debate in real time as Biden and Trump clashed on the economy, immigration, and abortion, and revisited discussion of their ages. Biden, 81, has become the oldest sitting U.S. president; if Trump defeats him, he would end his second term at age 82. You can read the full coverage here and excerpts detailing specific health-related claims follow:
Biden: “We brought down the price [of] prescription drug[s], which is a major issue for many people, to $15 for an insulin shot, as opposed to $400.”
Half True. Biden touted his efforts to reduce prescription drug costs by referring to the $35 monthly insulin price cap his administration put in place as part of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. But he initially flubbed the number during the debate, saying it was lowered to $15. In his closing statement, Biden corrected the amount to $35.
The price of insulin for Medicare enrollees, starting in 2023, dropped to $35 a month, not $15. Drug pricing experts told PolitiFact when it rated a similar claim that most Medicare enrollees were likely not paying a monthly average of $400 before the changes, although because costs vary depending on coverage phases and dosages, some might have paid that much in a given month.
Trump: “I’m the one that got the insulin down for the seniors.”
Mostly False. When he was president, Trump instituted the Part D Senior Savings Model, a program that capped insulin costs at $35 a month for some older Americans in participating drug plans.
But because it was voluntary, only 38% of all Medicare drug plans, including Medicare Advantage plans, participated in 2022, according to KFF. Trump’s plan also covered only one form of each dosage and insulin type.
Biden points to the Inflation Reduction Act’s mandatory $35 monthly insulin cap as a major achievement. This cap applies to all Medicare prescription plans and expanded to all covered insulin types and dosages. Although Trump’s model was a start, it did not have the sweeping reach that Biden’s mandatory cap achieved.
Biden: Trump “wants to get rid of the ACA again.”
Half True. In 2016, Trump campaigned on a promise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, or ACA. In the White House, Trump supported a failed effort to do just that. He repeatedly said he would dismantle the health care law in campaign stops and social media posts throughout 2023. In March, however, Trump walked back this stance, writing on his Truth Social platform that he “isn’t running to terminate” the ACA but to make it “better” and “less expensive.” Trump hasn’t said how he would do this. He has often promised Obamacare replacement plans without ever producing one.
Trump: “The problem [Democrats] have is they’re radical, because they will take the life of a child in the eighth month, the ninth month, and even after birth.”
False. Willfully terminating a newborn’s life is infanticide and illegal in every U.S. state.
Most elected Democrats who have spoken publicly about this have said they support abortion under Roe v. Wade’s standard, which allowed access up to fetal viability — typically around 24 weeks of pregnancy, when the fetus can survive outside the womb. Many Democrats have also said they support abortions past this point if the treating physician deems it necessary.
Medical experts say situations resulting in fetal death in the third trimester are rare — fewer than 1% of abortions in the U.S. occur after 21 weeks — and typically involve fatal fetal anomalies or life-threatening emergencies affecting the pregnant person. For fetuses with very short life expectancies, doctors may induce labor and offer palliative care. Some families choose this option when facing diagnoses that limit their babies’ survival to minutes or days after delivery.
Some Republicans who have made claims similar to Trump’s point to Democratic support of the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022, which would have prohibited many state government restrictions on access to abortion, citing the bill’s provisions that say providers and patients have the right to perform and receive abortion services without certain limitations or requirements that would impede access. Anti-abortion advocates say the bill, which failed in the Senate by a 49-51 vote, would have created a loophole that eliminated any limits on abortions later in pregnancy.
Alina Salganicoff, director of KFF’s Women’s Health Policy program, said the legislation would have allowed health providers to perform abortions without obstacles such as waiting periods, medically unnecessary tests and in-person visits, or other restrictions. The bill would have allowed an abortion after viability when, according to the bill, “in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.”
Trump: “Social Security, he’s destroying it, because millions of people are pouring into our country, and they’re putting them onto Social Security. They’re putting them onto Medicare, Medicaid.”
False. It’s wrong to say that immigration will destroy Social Security. Social Security’s fiscal challenges stem from a shortage of workers compared with beneficiaries.
Immigration is far from a fiscal fix-all for Social Security’s challenges. But having more immigrants in the United States would likely increase the worker-to-beneficiary ratio, potentially for decades, thus extending the program’s solvency.
Most immigrants in the U.S. without legal permission are also ineligible for Social Security. However, people who entered the U.S. without authorization and were granted humanitarian parole — temporary permission to stay in the country — for more than one year are eligible for benefits from the program.
Immigrants lacking legal residency in the U.S. are generally ineligibleto enroll in federally funded health care coverage such as Medicare and Medicaid. (Some states provide Medicaid coverage under state-funded programs regardless of immigration status. Immigrants are eligible for emergency Medicaid regardless of their legal status.)
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
Subscribe to KFF Health News' free Morning Briefing.
Imagine you sit on the admissions committee of a major medical school where only one slot remains available for the 2023 entering class. You must select between two candidates: one Latino, one white—both qualified.
Liam, the white student, is the son of an affluent lawyer. He scored 507 out of a possible 528 points on the MCAT; his GPA is 3.76. The son of a poor immigrant from Mexico, Jesse has the same MCAT score and GPA. Liam graduated from UCLA in four years with a pre-med major and a minor in business. Jesse graduated from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo in five and a half years with a biology major.
Whom do you choose? Do you expand the opportunities for minorities to compensate for previous discrimination?
“Affirmative action is reverse discrimination,” one person opines. “We should select the most qualified person. We should not discriminate against an applicant simply because he’s affluent.”
“I’m disgusted with these social programs that liberals are shoving down our throats,“ remarks another. “The government has no right fiddling in the business of private schools. Liam graduated from one of the nation’s most prestigious universities while Jesse matriculated through an obscure school and took much longer to graduate. ”
“But Jesse has had fewer opportunities than Liam,” another remarks. “Given the same entitlements, he would have scored higher than Liam. I’m sure Jesse took longer to graduate simply because he had to work to help support his family.”
“Since there are fewer minorities in the healthcare field,” someone states, “We must give Jesse this opportunity.”
“It bothered me to hear stereotypes about minorities.”
Someone who had yet to speak finally chimes in, “Let’s use a mile footrace as example: Two runners, one white, one black. The race begins. The white runner dashes out for an early lead. The black runner, as it turns out, has a 20-lb. iron ball attached to a chain around his ankle. He can barely move; yet he perseveres. Someone yells, “That’s not fair!”
“The official unlocks the ball and chain but even so the black runner remains far behind. It’s still not fair even though both runners now are unfettered. Equal treatment is not enough. We must compensate for previous inequality.”
The argument continues, the dialogue full of passion, adamancy and outrage. No consensus emerges.
The “committee members” are actually SMU students role-taking in my “Minority-Dominant Relations” class offered through the Sociology Department and Ethnic Studies program. We examine ethnic groups with unequal power in the US. In order to delve into social inequality, students scrutinize their own assumptions, stereotypes and prejudices.
“It was a tense and painful discussion,” says a Black female. “Some of us carried on our debate after class and into the next day at the student center. Some began to recognize attitudes in themselves that they didn’t know existed. “
“It bothered me to hear stereotypes about minorities,” states a Latino on the football team. “But that’s part of the learning process in this course.”
As students debate, I remain in the background, walking quietly among discussion groups, watching, listening, taking mental notes. I have engaged in such observation all my life, as the son a Mexican American mother whose family is from San Miguel de Alto, Jalisco and a father who had immigrated to the US from Sicily and had never graduated high school.
Democracy is more than majority rule— more than a mama puma, her cub and a white-tailed deer voting on what to have for lunch. It is also the protection of minority rights to prevent dominion of the minority by the majority. Diversity ensures respect for distinctive identities and protects those at greatest risk of being displaced and alienated internally within the US. On September 17, 1787, the Constitution's framers codified minority rights by structuring equality between states in the Senate (and representation of state populations in the House).
Apparently, SCOTUS never seemed to mind that affirmative action for white males has traditionally prevailed in society’s economic, political, military, educational, law enforcement and criminal justice institutions. Legacy admissions continue affirmative action for white males. Large, pervasive and disproportionately high rates of student loan debts perpetuate social stratification.
Diversity is not a zero-sum game. Society suffers when diverse elements are excluded from decision-making processes and leadership positions.
Lack of diversity harms both individual victims of exclusion and society at large. The harm to individuals, especially children, includes damage to psyches (depression, internalized anger, lowered self-esteem). There are also physical harms (high blood pressure, rapid shallow breathing, insomnia). Finally, lowered monetary and social opportunities pressure minorities to recoil from exclusive and discriminatory settings and become guarded and vigilant. If you do not have a seat at the table, you are probably on the menu.
Diversity is not a zero-sum game. Society suffers when diverse elements are excluded from decision-making processes and leadership positions. The most serious harm is at the macro societal level. Societies have used affirmative action for white males to stereotype categories of people as unintelligent, dangerous, or menacing. Such labels have been used to justify slavery, segregation, removal of indigenous people and genocide. Lack of diversity is perhaps most treacherous when its effects are slow-developing, largely unnoticed and toxic like carbon monoxide.
The lack of diversity is dysfunctional; it silences and marginalizes minorities depriving communities of their voices and contributions. The goal of the First Amendment is to energize speech and dialogue. A society without diversity curtails the spirit of the debate of ideas. It reveals to minorities nothing of which they are not already aware. It censors minorities and emboldens the majority with entitlement. Lack of diversity has damaging consequences, conveys exclusive uncertainty for youth, and desensitizes a society with ramifications that can extend from crucial injustice to outright atrocity. If we fail to take affirmative steps, the social unrest and violence proceeding the murder of George Floyd while in police custody will inescapably pale in terms of what lies ahead.
Anthony J. Cortese is Professor Emeritus of Sociology, Dedman College of Humanities and Sciences, SMU, Dallas Texas and sits on the Board of Directors of SMU’s Retired Faculty Association. Cortese has served as Director of Chicano Studies, Colorado State University and Director of Ethnic Studies and Director of Mexican American Studies at SMU.
Other opinions worth noting:
Fining kids by the Illinois criminal justice system needs to end
by Officer Dave Franco (Ret.)
From my perspective, after 31 years in law enforcement and now as an adjunct professor teaching Juvenile Justice Administration at Wright College in Chicago, failure is when people involved in the justice system are left without the means to create a better future for themselves and their families. Across communities, those means can take many shapes.
...
No doubt life is always changing. If you don’t like the weather it will change, eventually. It’s been hot most all over but cooler weather will come. In most of the country, cooler weather will be welcomed sooner rather than later.
...
"In times of war, the enemy gets a vote." Those words are particularly relevant today, as tensions build between the U.S. and Russia.
But this all seems eerily familiar.
As Americans, we need to ask ourselves how we would feel if Russia ...
PONTIAC - People everywhere are conquering their cabin fever and are enjoying the great outdoors after a long, bitter winter. But before you head out for that hike, health care experts remind you to take precautions to avoid tick bites. Read more . . .
CHICAGO - An Illinois law professor is weighing in on what she called a "very public and open test of due process" for immigrants being deported from the United States without court hearings. Read more . . .
CHAMPAIGN - In a show of solidarity against President Donald Trump's trade and immigration policies, which critics say are harming families and retirement savings, more than a thousand protesters gathered Saturday at West Park near downtown Champaign for the Hands-Off! Mobilization rally. Read more . . .
Photo Galleries
A couple of runners found themselves in the wrong race at this year's Illinois Marathon. Over 60 photos from the race that you should see.
CHICAGO - Local chapters of the League of Women Voters of Illinois will host community protests and rallies in five cities across Illinois tomorrow, March 4. The goal is to bring people together in solidarity during the president's address to Congress on Tuesday.
Donald Trump will deliver the first joint congressional address of his second presidency on Tuesday at 9 p.m. EST. While not a State of the Union address, the president is expected to announce his goals for the year and accomplishments as he starts his second term before a packed House chamber.
LWVIL says the events around the state are being held to "offer a peaceful and unified space to come together for the health of our democracy, the future of our nation, and the well-being of all its people."
Gatherings will be held in Batavia, downtown Chicago, Naperville, Rockford, and at the Courthouse Plaza in Peoria.
"Defending democracy is our mission," Becky Simon, president of the League of Women Voters of Illinois, said in a release today, stressing an "urgent" need for peaceful protest during this administration. "The League’s spirit to act and fight for our democracy is exactly the courage we need to defend our constitutional republic."
Kathy Cortez, LWVIL vice president for issues and advocacy, noted that "The League has been defending democracy for 105 years, and we are just getting started."
League of Women Voters of Illinois protests will take place on Tuesday, March 4, at the following locations:
During the 2016 election, 
