RFFM.ORG

Gitmo Detainees Come To Illinois: Quad Cities Nuclear Power Plant 20 Miles Away, Oops!

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

 

Here is a bright idea.  Take a gaggle of the most dangerous terrorists in the world, move them from a very secure holding facility in Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo) and transfer them to a prison in a sleepy little Illinois town.  This is the brilliant plan of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.  Currently, a board is meeting to put its stamp of approval regarding the transfer of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), the admitted mastermind of 9/11, and a number of other Gitmo detainees to the Thomson Correctional Facility in Thomson, Illinois.  The Mayor of this sleepy little hamlet is all a flutter.  "It'll bring thousands of jobs to the area," said Mayor Jerry Hebeler.  What Hebeler failed to address is the fact KSM and his band of killers will attract like-minded individuals to his sleepy little town, nestled away in northwestern Illinois.

 

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn reportedly will have the final say on whether the transfer will take place.  But let's say the move is a fait accompli.  U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin and every other Democrat in Illinois have fallen all over themselves touting how the new high security federal facility will make Illinois a better place to live. 

 

I don't know who originally came up with the bright idea concerning the Gitmo transfer to Illinois, but the proposal doesn't hold water.  Sorry about the reference to water because KSM was waterboarded at least 183 times before he gave up information which exposed other terrorist plots targeting the United States.  But I digress.

 

The alleged thousands of jobs that will be created when the Gitmo killers are housed in a small town near the Mississippi river is laughable.  Most of the personnel needed to man such a high security facility will have to be imported from out of state.  Yes, the administrators and guards will need a place to live, they will buy groceries and they will have to put gas in their government provided hybrids.  But here is something that is a hidden benefit from the plan.  There is a nuclear facility just about 20 miles south of Thomson, Illinois.  For those driving hybrids, it would be a good place to plug in.  For those who are worried about global warming, a charge from the power plant would certainly put the Thomson Correction facility within range for all those who care deeply about our environment. 

 

But wait a minute.  Just who will be visiting KSM and his cohorts when they eventually end up in America's heartland?  Will visitors include Girl Scouts selling cookies?  Or perhaps a group of Boy Scouts from a nearby town just down the road might want to drop in to have a chat with the man responsible for killing over 3,000 people on September 11, 2001.  Or perhaps KSM's visitors list will include some individuals who don't exactly look upon the U.S. as the land of the free and the home of the brave. 

 

However, let's get back to charging up those hybrids.  The Quad Cities Generating Station is a dual unit Boiling Water Reactor nuclear power station.  Oops!  Let's see if I have my ducks in a row or should it be turkeys since bringing some of the most notorious people in the world en masse to a facility located a mere stone's throw from a nuclear power plant took the brains of the bird who just went through some hard times over Thanksgiving and Christmas. 

 

Anyone who lives in a town or city where a prison is located understands that soon to follow will be those who have relationships with those who are incarcerated there.  Some of those who move in are innocent friends and relatives of the inmates, others are associates in crime or, in KSM's case, fellow terrorists.  These people don't end up leaving the area either.  They buy homes, they rent apartments or, in the case of the Gitmo detainees, I expect local hotels will suddenly have an influx of customers named Omar Smith, Khalid Kelly or Osama Johnson.  All kidding aside, has the Obama administration completely lost its mind?  Perhaps they could have transferred to the prisoners to the nuclear power plant itself.  After all, this might cut into the nation's soaring deficit because the facility already has well trained security and AG Holder could have killed two birds with one stone, so to speak. 

 

Bringing a bunch of American-hating, terrorist-loving individuals to an area just miles away from what would be a juicy target in any terrorist's manual would be as easy as drawing flies to a rotting carcass.  Now, if there are those who think I am giving away details which might impact national security, I have some nice ocean front property in Nevada for sale.  Just contact Senate Majority leader Harry Reid for more details.  Anyone who thinks the Cordova nuclear power plant hasn't crossed the minds of those who would like to advance their deadly religious agenda with a big bang surely are aware of what lies a half hour away from their fearless leader.  I know it sounds too ridiculous to be true, even for the Obama administration.  No one could be that idiotic or naive, could they?  Or perhaps the word naive isn't the proper description for those who formulated this plan to make Illinois the international home away from home for Islamic terrorists. 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org  

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

If William Kelly Does Not Understand Simple Facts About Displays In Illinois State Capitol Building, How Can He Be Comptroller For Entire State?

Kelly says: "There is a lot of false information coming out about what happened yesterday."  He's right...and it's coming from Kelly.

 

by RFFM.org staff writer

 

On Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009 GOP candidate for Illinois state comptroller, William J. Kelly, attempted to remove a sign placed in the state capitol Rotunda by the Madison, Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation.  A statement on Kelly's website reads, "As a candidate for comptroller, I believe it is absolutely wrong for Illinois’ officials to be spending tax dollars to denigrate and mock good people of faith." 

 

Critics say William Kelly was attempting to use the Springfield Nativity Scene display for his own political agenda.  Kelly's actions were not spontaneous.  RFFM.org learned Kelly issued a press release on December 22, 2009 which read, "GOP candidate for comptroller, William J. Kelly, plans to remove the American Civil Liberty Union’s atheist display at the Illinois Capitol in Springfield, Illinois."

 

Clearly, from the beginning, Kelly did not have his facts in order regarding exactly what was on display in the Illinois state capitol Rotunda building.  Standing in the center of the state capitol floor was a Nativity scene sponsored by the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee.  There was a Hanukkah Menorah also on exhibit; a sign from the Illinois Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union supporting the right of these religious displays to stand in the state capitol; and an easel which related a message from a group of pagans posing as atheists which call themselves the Freedom From Religion Foundation.  It is obvious Kelly did not actually know who put up the displays in the capitol Rotunda and which groups said what on their signage.  According to his own press release, Kelly originally intended to abscond with the ACLU sign which actually supported the right of the religious displays to stand in the capitol. 

 

Most egregious is the fact Mr. Kelly says, "...it is absolutely wrong for Illinois’ officials to be spending tax dollars..."  The truth of the matter is all of the displays in the state Capitol Rotunda are privately funded.  That's what makes them legal.  This, plus the fact all the displays are temporary demonstrates Kelly acted without possession of the facts involving why the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee was able to erect a Nativity scene for the second year in a row.  The only money Illinois taxpayers spent regarding the displays was the cost involving the 15 law enforcement officers who escorted Kelly out of the Rotunda, before briefly detaining him to write up an incident report. 

 

If Kelly was not in possession of the simple facts regarding his blatant attempt to attract publicity, especially the economic aspects of the issue, some critics ask: "How could Kelly be comptroller for the entire state of Illinois?" 

 

In a phone conversation with Daniel T. Zanoza, Chairman of the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee, Kelly said, "We won't let them take the Nativity scene out of the state capitol building." 

 

"I was stunned," said Zanoza, "I asked Kelly whether he was running for state comptroller, Secretary of State or Governor.  Even if Kelly was elected state comptroller, Kelly would have no input into who could or could not obtain a permit to place a display in the state capitol building.  It was a foolish boast, but I genuinely had compassion for the man because he was so ill-informed."

 

Zanoza went on to say he is happy this year's display of the Nativity scene went on virtually without a hitch.  Thousands of people came to the capitol Rotunda to see the Nativity scene.  One committee member told me she was nearly brought to tears when she saw a family, consisting of a Father, Mother and three young children who were viewing the statues of Joseph, Mary and the Christ child.  A five year old, the oldest of the children, said, "I love baby Jesus!"  With a loving smile, the Father looked at his son and said, "I love baby Jesus, too!"   

 

"This is what the Nativity scene is all about," said Zanoza.  "It is a celebration of the birth of Christ.  It's truly unfortunate there are those who put their own agenda above others."

 

Zanoza says the Springfield, Illinois Nativity scene is not about controversy.  The actions of individuals like Mr. Kelly is what led to officials in the state of Washington prohibiting all groups from displaying any exhibits--religious or otherwise--in that state's capitol building in Olympia.  

 

"I'm kind of glad the Nativity scene is coming down for this Christmas season," said Zanoza.  "We don't need individuals like Kelly ruining something wonderful for their own selfish political purposes." 

 

RELATED ARTICLES: 

 

Illinois State Comptroller Candidate William J. Kelly Uses Springfield Nativity Scene For Publicity Stunt:  http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2009/12/illinois-state-comptroller-candidate-william-j-kelly-uses-springfield-nativity-scene-for-publicity-s.html 

 

State Journal-Register article by Bernie Schoenburg: Surely he jests:  http://www.sj-r.com/opinions/x1136811925/Bernard-Schoenburg-Hoffman-Giannoulias-duel-over-Bright-Start-accord 

 

ACLU Again Not Challenging Springfield, Illinois Nativity Scene: Isn't That Special! It Is: http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2009/11/aclu-again-not-challenging-springfield-illinois-nativity-scene-isnt-that-special-it-is.html 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Springfield Nativity Scene Represents America's Legacy Regarding Judeo-Christian Heritage

By Beth Rogers

Speech Tells How Nation's Leaders Perceived The Role Christianity Has Played In U.S. History

 

Beth Rogers of Springfield is a highly respected pro-family activist.  The following speech was given at the Second Annual Opening Day Ceremony of the Springfield Nativity Scene in the Illinois state Capitol Rotunda Building on December 1, 2009.  Rogers is also a member of the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee.  

 

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

 

I will begin by reading from a public document from the Preamble of the Illinois State Constitution, “We the people of the State of Illinois grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He has permitted us to enjoy and seeking His blessing upon our endeavors in order to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the people to maintain a representative and orderly government. “

 

We have gathered here today to celebrate a long standing tradition and to exercise First Amendment rights of the United States Constitution.  The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.  The Constitution was signed 'in the year of our Lord 1787'".  For the second year in a row, the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee has sponsored a display depicting the birth of Jesus Christ.  This display stands in accordance with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which provides for such religious expression in the public square.

 

The birth of Christ was over 2,000 years ago and the Christmas tradition has been around long before our nation was founded.  The tradition continued in the United States even as President George Washington’s family celebrated Christmas.

 

There is an historical significance of Christmas because of the major role that Christianity has played in our heritage and history.  The majority of our Founding Fathers had a Christian worldview.  This is evidenced in their many references to God and the Holy Scriptures.  Thomas Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and source of our inalienable rights.  For over 200 years, our past presidents have taken their oath of office on the Bible.  Even President Barrack Obama took his oath on Abraham Lincoln’s personal Bible.  Abraham Lincoln made many references to God.  He said, “The Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man.”  This book contains the story of the birth of Jesus Christ in Bethlehem, his life and his death on a cross.  When the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Museum and Library opened in Springfield in 2005, one of the songs that was sung in the public square was "The Battle Hymn of the Republic." The fourth verse in this song says:  

 

“In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,

With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me,

As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,

While God is marching on."

 

There is evidence of the role of faith throughout our American history.

 

From at least 1789 there is an unbroken history of official acknowledgement of God by all three branches of our government.

 

1.  Our Presidents have had prayer and acknowledgements of God.

 

2.  Congress opens with prayer.

 

3.  Since 1789 the Supreme Court opens its business with the words, “God save the United States and this honorable court.”

 

There are numerous examples in Washington, D.C. of an undeniable link between the U.S. government and God--from U.S. Currency to the government buildings.  The Supreme Court has the Ten Commandments inscribed in four places.  The Washington Monument includes a Bible in its cornerstone.  The White House, Library of Congress and the Jefferson Memorial all have references to God.  This is evidence that our forefathers believed in God and biblical principles.

 

CHRISTMAS

 

Christmas is a federal holiday with a SPECIFIC NAME.

 

The Supreme Court has acknowledged that government has long recognized holidays with religious significance such as Christmas.

 

The United States post office has issued stamps with Mary & Jesus with the words “Christmas” on the stamp.  The stamp highlights a detail of Italian artist Salvi's painting, "Madonna and Child," circa 1685.

 

The true meaning of Christmas offers the message about the birth of Jesus Christ who came to earth to die for the sins of mankind.  We pray thousands will join in this celebration and enjoy the beauty and majesty of the Christmas story.  In the spirit of tradition and honoring our eternal Creator, we wish you a very Merry Christmas.

 

RELATED ARTICLE:  Separation of Church + State Myth: Founding Fathers' True View On Religion's Role In Government:  http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/09/the-separation-of-church-and-state-myth-the-founding-fathers-their-true-view-on-religions-role-in-government.html 

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Illinois State Comptroller Candidate William J. Kelly Uses Springfield Nativity Scene For Publicity Stunt

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Chairman, Springfield Nativity Scene Committee

& Executive Director, RFFM.org

In 2008, there was a great deal of controversy involving a Nativity scene which stood in the capitol building in the state of Washington.  The heated controversy created by both those supporting and opposing the religious display in Olympia reached such a crescendo, state officials decided to throw all of them out.  The Nativity scene standing in the Washington state capitol, the signs opposing it, a Menorah celebrating Hanukkah, signs opposing the expression of religious liberty and the crowds demonstrating against each other were just too much trouble for state officials.  Subsequently, those who desired to express religious liberty and their opponents were told they could do so, but outside the confines of the Capitol building.  This resulted in the individual who purchased the Nativity scene donating the display to a church and those on the far left ended up winning the battle in Washington state.

On December 1st 2008, the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee (SNSC), received permission from the Secretary of State's office to display a Nativity scene, for the first time in state history, in the state Capitol Rotunda Building.  The opening day ceremony attracted a great deal of media and the religious display attracted those with dissenting opinions regarding the expression of religious liberty in the public square as well.

This year, a standing room only crowd attended the 2nd annual opening day ceremony for the Springfield Nativity Scene.  It was a wonderful event.  The Joyful Senior Singers + Ringers from the Tabernacle Baptist Church in Decatur performed Christmas carols.  State employees, who were on their lunch breaks, watched the event, some singing along with the choir, others were just enjoying the spirit of the Christmas season.

Again, this year, there was a Hanukkah Menorah and a sign from the Illinois ACLU supporting the First Amendment right of the SNSC to display the manger scene depicting Joseph, Mary and the baby Jesus.  And, once again, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, put up a placard disparaging people of faith.

But, unfortunately, William J. Kelly, who is seeking the Republican nomination for state comptroller, decided--on his own--to use the Nativity Scene as a publicity stunt to advance his political campaign.  I spoke with Kelly after learning of his prank and I questioned his motives for attempting to remove the atheist signage from the state Capitol Rotunda.  "The sign is hate speech," said Kelly "and I decided it shouldn't be there."  Now I had never spoken with this man before.  He made no effort to join the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee.  He did not make a donation to the SNSC or to the Chicago-based Thomas More Society who originally underwrote the Nativity Scene display.  And, to my knowledge, he had no contact with the Illinois Family Institute, Business Men In Christ or Isringhausen Imports of Springfield who financially supported this year's Nativity Scene.  Mr. Kelly did not attend the opening day "unveiling" ceremony this year or last.  But he took it upon himself to generate publicity for his own personal political agenda.

I wish I didn't have to write this because the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee members agreed we were not looking for controversy.  Indeed, we are blessed because Illinois is the only state which has a Nativity Scene standing in its state capitol.

In 20 years of working to advance the cause of the pro-family movement, I have learned there are those who genuinely care about the issues they spend so much of their time and money supporting.  Unfortunately, there are also those who are opportunists who jump on the pro-family bandwagon to advance their own agenda.  It is apparent Mr. Kelly represents the latter.  Just imagine if someone walked into the state Capitol Rotunda Building, picked up the Nativity scene and started to walk out of the door with it because they don't agree with the fact it is there.  This is exactly what Kelly did when he tried to remove the atheist group's signage--which I personally believe is repugnant, but they have the same First Amendment right to be there as we do.

In fact, last year, the atheist sign was stolen after hours and the organization played up the incident to their advantage, saying it was a demonstration of Christian intolerance.  Kelly's actions played right into the hands of those who oppose the right of Christians to express their faith in the public square.  Kelly apologized to me for his actions and it is a possibility he acted before he thought.  But one thing's for sure.  He knew he would get publicity and his campaign manager was touting Kelly's actions to the conservative and mainstream media.  I have learned, he even announced on Tuesday this was his intent (to come to the Capitol on Wednesday).  Kelly made the news in central Illinois, in Chicago and the story was even briefly alluded to on the O'Reilly Factor on FOX News.

Last year, after the Joyful Senior Singers + Ringers choir from Decatur performed near the Nativity scene, they acted in a Christlike manner regarding the atheist signage.  They made a circle around the sign, holding hands while they prayed for those whose hearts and minds shut the Lord out of their lives.  I believe this is how Christians should act.  In fact, it is an answer to the question:  What Would Jesus Do?

But Kelly acted selfishly, not thinking about the possible ramifications of his actions beyond his own political agenda.  Of course, the media ran to the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation for comment.  The dominant media did not come to me as Chairman of the SNSC or to any other members of the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee for our reaction to Kelly's political prank.  Did Kelly honestly believe he was going to be allowed to walk out the door of the Capitol Rotunda, carrying away one of the displays on exhibit in the center of the capitol floor?  The fact is, in order to view the atheist sign, one must walk behind the Nativity scene.  The message on the sign is hostile and the co-president of the Wisconsin-based atheist group admits as much.  I personally believe the atheist signage publicly demonstrates intolerance and hatred and people should see it as it stands in juxtaposition to the message of love, forgiveness and hope which the Nativity scene represents.

As a Christian, I accepted Mr. Kelly's apology.  But, at the same time, I question his judgment.  The Nativity scene is NOT about controversy.  It is a celebration of the birth of the Savior of mankind.  It is not a political tool to be used by anyone, no matter how conservative they claim to be.  As Chairman of the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee, my message to the atheist group is clear.  I did not--and do not--support the actions of Kelly.  I would also like to let the Secretary of State's office and the Capitol Police know the SNSC does not support such actions.  In fact, we abhor them.

Merry Christmas, Mr. Kelly.  May God bless you and keep you well.

And thanks to the hundreds of people who helped support the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee in many ways. 

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL from the SPRINGFIELD NATIVITY SCENE COMMITTEE.

Related article:  Choir Performing at Site of Springfield Nativity Scene Wows Overflow Crowd at Capitol, Despite Presence of Offensive Atheist Signage by Dan Gura (SNSC member) posted 12/12/08   http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/12/choir-performing-at-site-of-springfield-nativity-scene-wows-overflow-crowd-at-capitol-despite-presen.html

Photo from 2008

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org  

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Snopes.com Info on Best Buy's Christmas Greeting Policy Outdated: Continued Boycott Unfair

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

The other day, my wife and I visited a Best Buy store in the Chicagoland area and were pleasantly surprised.  As we were checking out, the young cashier went out of her way to wish us both a very merry Christmas.  My wife and I were taken aback by the young lady's obvious enjoyment in extending her greeting, to the point it was a topic of conversation as we left the store.

Shortly afterward, I received an e-mail sent out by an individual who was supporting a boycott of Best Buy.  The individual was forwarding an e-mail he had received which, unbeknownst to him, referred to outdated information regarding Best Buy's policy related to Christmas greetings issued by employees (or the lack thereof) to their customers.  The e-mail suggested Best Buy was conducting a war on Christmas, as some retailers are, and the writer said the information was true because he confirmed the information by going to Snopes.com.  He even provided the link to the website which supposedly reports on whether issues are factual or not.  The only problem is, none of the people who forwarded these e-mails--which supported the continued boycott of Best Buy--went to Snopes.com and carefully read the information posted on the site at this link: http://www.snopes.com/politics/christmas/bestbuy.asp. 

Subsequently, I went to Snopes.com to see if Best Buy was indeed not allowing employees to wish customers a merry Christmas.  This was factual, but the only problem was the information was clearly outdated.  The Snopes.com data was posted in 2006 and since then Best Buy has obviously changed its policy.  Now, of course, during my visit to the store, there might have been an entire shift of rogue employees who were putting their jobs on the line and ignoring store policy regarding the prohibition on wishing customers a merry Christmas.  But anyone with common sense would perceive Best Buy had changed its policy regarding the issue, but Snopes.com had failed to update the data it provided in 2006 regarding Best Buy's policy. 

Obviously, the e-mail regarding a continued boycott against Best Buy is unfair.  Also, I was taught a lesson because those who administer the Snopes.com website fail to do their job.  Subsequently, the store is being punished without merit.  This story should be a lesson for all when receiving forwards.  Those who pass such information along to their databases have a duty to confirm the information by contacting the actual source and not depending on Snopes.com as the ultimate purveyor of the truth.

In a time of economic depression, there are those who obviously believe Best Buy is continuing a policy which surely has resulted in the store's loss of revenue.  Perhaps at one time, the boycott of Best Buy regarding its policy towards Christmas greetings had merit.  But, sadly, the retailer is a victim of inaccurate and outdated information.

Right at the top of the Snopes.com website, it clearly states, "Collected via e-mail 2006".  Near the bottom of the same page it reads, "Last updated November 2006".  So, I suppose Snopes.com is blameless, but, at the same time, Snopes.com should be blamed for its omission of current information about Best Buy's current Christmas greeting policy. 

RFFM.org wishes everyone a Merry CHRISTMAS and a new year filled with God's blessings. 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org  

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

U.S. Senate Passes Health Care Reform In Dark Of Night: Who Did Not Read The Bill? Dick Durbin (D-IL) & Others

How Legislation Will Impact You

Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

In 2006 I became totally blind.  I don't need to go into the details involving what led to the loss of my eyesight, but because of my experience, I am familiar with how Medicare and Medicaid work in Illinois.  I also understand how the proposed health care reform bill--which cleared a major hurdle due to a procedural vote taken in the United States Senate on Monday, December 21, 2009 at roughly 1 A.M. Central time--would impact those currently receiving Medicare and Medicaid.

Without going into the minutiae regarding parliamentary rules, the vote taken in the U.S. Senate early Monday morning essentially will mean the bill will be passed in the Senate in its current form sometime later this week.  Senate Republicans--who voted en masse against health care reform--have run out of tactics that would delay the official passage of the legislation.

I qualify for and receive Medicare and Medicaid.  Medicare covers roughly 80% of doctor and hospital bills; Medicaid (which is funded by the state of Illinois) pays the majority of the balance for essential health related expenses.  Rules differ from state to state regarding the Medicaid entitlement, dependent upon one's income, including pensions, retirement funds, personal assets, etc.

Obviously, Medicare is a program that is a safety net for both the rich and poor alike.  Without Medicare, health care costs would decimate the financial standing of most Americans.  But Medicare was primarily designed to assist the elderly, the handicapped and those who qualify for the program under survivor benefits.

As many know, President Barack Obama's health care reform bill would reduce Medicare benefits by $500 billion.  Some say, over a ten-year period, these proposed cuts would come closer to $1 trillion.  To put this in perspective, Medicare's budget for a one year period alone is $500 billion.  Under Obama's proposal, essentially one year of Medicare funding would disappear.  Supporters of health care reform claim the reduction in the program's funding would come from elimination of waste and fraud related to Medicare.  I have personally become aware of the fact there is a great deal of wasteful spending in the system.  I receive monthly reports on what Medicare pays to doctors and hospitals and--more than once--I have seen things like double and triple billing for the same procedure.  But in contrast to Obama's allegations, I have rarely seen doctors prescribe tests that were unnecessary.  The truth is, it would not take a massive reform of America's entire health care system to address these problems.  In one particular circumstance, I had one stress test performed at a highly renowned hospital in Chicago.  The records I received indicated Medicare was billed for the same procedure three times.  I called a hotline meant to address Medicare abuse and/or fraud.  However, my attempt to report this abuse fell on deaf ears.  I even contacted a member of Congress regarding the matter who supposedly claimed abuse of this kind was an issue he was deeply concerned about, but I never heard from this Congressman either.  Subsequently, a procedure--which lasted 15 minutes, involving two technicians and a treadmill--cost taxpayers three times the original bill of $600.  It's no wonder Medicare will soon be bankrupt. 

There are good things about Medicare.  I can choose my own doctor, in most cases, although there are some physicians who will not participate in the program.  If I need to see a specialist regarding a medical problem I am having, the wait time to get an appointment is reasonable, although there are situations where it can take weeks to get an appointment with a specialist.  In general, if the costs from abuse and waste were eliminated from Medicare, it would be an entitlement even fiscal conservatives could live with.

On the other hand, my wife's situation is an example of how Medicare would work under the current reforms proposed by liberal Democrats who control both Houses of Congress and the presidency.  My wife no longer works and she has no health care insurance.  Since I lost all my vision, she is reluctant to leave me alone, for even short periods of time, even though I tell her "I will be okay."  The reaction of a loved one in such a situation is understandable because if the circumstances were reversed, I would react in the same manner, probably to a greater degree.

Under Medicaid guidelines in the state of Illinois, I am caught in a Catch 22.  My wife is not covered under Medicare or Medicaid and we cannot afford health care insurance for her.  Subsequently, my wife must pay for her doctor visits, tests and any medications.  She is enrolled in a program at a clinic which accepts patients with little or no income.  The facility is located in Springfield.  A round trip to the clinic is roughly 80 miles and, most important, the wait time to see a doctor is often six weeks or longer.  This program is not free.  The amount one is charged is dependent upon a family's income.  Therefore, my Social Security benefits are included as income and my wife is charged according to a sliding scale.  If tests, x-rays, etc. are needed, (and they require a referral from the attending physician at the clinic), again, costs are determined on a sliding scale.  Such referrals are dependent upon finding a doctor who is willing to participate in the program.  Many physicians and specialists do not accept such referrals, due to the fact the Medicaid program in Illinois is extremely slow in making payments.  The Medicaid program in Illinois is an unfunded mandate which, in great part, has resulted in multi-billion dollar deficits facing the state.  This scenario is repeated in many other states across the nation.

If health care reform is passed by the United States Congress, it will include at least 30 million individuals, like my wife, who do not have health care insurance.  The proponents of health care reform claim the legislation--which would essentially put one-sixth of the American economy under the government's control--would be deficit neutral.  A simple question that must be asked is: 

How will 15 million, 30 million or 47 million people (depending on what numbers you believe) who are currently without health care insurance receive adequate health care without it costing taxpayers literally, in some cases, an arm and a leg?  When health care reform is passed, no matter which version of the bill it will be, there are some realities that will have a great impact on all Americans--for generations to come.

There will be rationing of health care services for those who qualify for Medicare.  Any one who believes this will not be the case is either naive or grossly ill-informed.  Then, there is the most likely scenario which will result in the government taking further control of our daily lives.  Americans will be told what they can eat or drink.  We will be told we must live what some bureaucrat will determine is a healthy lifestyle.  Though the left claims health care reform is meant to benefit the poor, it will, in actuality, hurt, not help low income families. 

I, as an individual who qualifies for Medicare, expect health care services (under any legislation currently being considered by Congress) to be delivered in a clinic-like form of the type my wife is currently enrolled in.  Now, of course, I don't expect to be sitting in a waiting room alongside my wife, Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordan or Warren Buffett.  With millions of baby boomers reaching the age of retirement, the current system will collapse under its own weight.  Subsequently, there will be a class of citizens--mostly made up of the wealthy--who will be able to choose their own doctors and receive the care provided to those who qualify for Medicare as it now exists.  Then, there will be a vast majority of the public who will be subjected to a grossly inferior health care delivery system.  Many more doctors will refuse to accept Medicare patients because of the bureaucracy involved.  The fiscal demands related to the supposed inclusion of the uninsured into the health care system will drive many physicians who are specialists out of the system because the government will not pay for procedures unless they are approved by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. 

Here is an example of how rationing will work.  Recently, a very controversial recommendation made by a board of government "experts" suggested women between the ages of 40 and 49 do not need yearly mammograms.  Though this procedure has saved the lives of countless women by detecting breast cancer in its early stages, government bureaucrats, not doctors, will determine the fate of untold millions.  Such boards will be created to determine what other procedures, i.e., tests, x-rays, surgeries, etc. are necessary.  We must keep in mind one of the primary reasons for the recommendations regarding yearly mammograms for women between 40 and 49 not be performed was supposedly based on the anxiety women face when waiting for the results of their mammograms.  The recommendation of the board was met by condemnation from those on the left and the political right--and rightly so.  However, under health care reform, such ridiculous findings will be commonplace, rather than an anomaly. 

After the Senate passes its version of health care reform, the Senate version of the bill and the legislation already passed by the House of Reps. will undergo the committee process where some sort of compromise must be reached.  The final product will again come before both Houses of Congress for a final vote and if passed, the bill will then be brought to Obama's desk for his signature.  There is still time for health care reform legislation to be defeated.  The vote taken by the Senate in the dark of night, while most Americans were sleeping, was a huge step in the process of ramming health care reform down the throats of the public.

Unbelievably, many Senators who voted for the bill, including Democratic majority leaders like Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, did not even take time to read the bill they voted to pass.

However, the results are not a fait accompli.  Yet there are forces, including the pharmaceutical industry and lobbyists representing many different special interest groups (except for those who wish to make America's health care delivery system better) who will apply extreme pressure that will ensure health care reform becomes a reality.  This is despite the wishes of a vast majority of the American public who can look at the issue objectively.

Many Americans admit there is a need for health care reform.  Many individuals, my wife included, do need some form of medical care, besides visiting an emergency room for a slightly sprained ankle.  A common sense approach to the problem is needed, but common sense rarely is the driving force in Washington, D.C.  If I thought health care reform would benefit anyone, I would be for it.  However, in the real world, the result of this legislation will not improve anyone's health care, including my wife's.  There will come a time when those now on Medicare, especially the elderly, will look back at the "good 'ol days" when the money they paid into the system for their entire lives ensured decent medical care.

Here is a crazy idea.  Perhaps a board consisting of average Americans, including people from all walks of life, could be put together to devise a plan that would not only bring health care costs down, but improve health care for those who need it.  But such a board would need to exclude politicians, lobbyists and the special interest groups they represent.  However, don't expect that to happen any time soon.  Though nearly 60% of Americans oppose the health care bills currently being considered by both Houses of Congress, our elected officials are going forward with their plan any way.  The message is:  We are going to help you whether you want the help or not, no matter the cost or consequences to our country.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org  

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Jim Ryan for Governor: Gun Owners Have Not Forgotten Former Illinois Attorney General’s Attempt To Entrap Law-Abiding Citizens

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article, written by Daniel Zanoza, was published in the January 2002 edition of Guns Save Life [www.gunssavelife.com/]. The article was an RFM NEWS (now known as RFFM.org) Exclusive. The following details how Jim Ryan, who is currently seeking the Illinois Republican gubernatorial nomination in 2010, attempted to entrap law-abiding citizens who were selling and/or buying firearms over the Internet. In 2001, Ryan was Attorney General for the state of Illinois. Ryan launched a failed--and what many called unlawful--sting operation targeting gun owners and dealers.

Ryan was pursuing what his own legal advisors determined were cases which would not have passed legal muster in a court of law. 

While Ryan was doggedly pursuing his Internet gun sting, AG Ryan reportedly refused to assist the USPIS (U.S. Postal Inspection Services) in an investigation of nearly 1,700 possible cases of the Internet being used for the procurement of child pornography.

Titles below as published in Guns Save Life:

Questions abound: Where are the guns? Where are the arrests? What happened to the money?

A.G. Jim Ryan’s botched gun sting

January 2002

Chicago (RFM NEWS) - RFM NEWS has learned Illinois Attorney General Jim Ryan postponed a press conference that would have announced a major investigation. The press conference, which would have outlined a significant Internet gun buy sting conducted by investigators from the Attorney General’s office, was reportedly scheduled to take place sometime during the Spring of 2001.

According to sources close to the Attorney General’s office who spoke to RFM NEWS on condition of anonymity, the Internet gun buy sting netted as many as 25 automatic and semi-automatic firearms which were sent through the U.S. mail and purchased by investigators from the AG’s office.

Sources tell RFM NEWS the press conference was postponed indefinitely when lawyers for the Attorney General’s office determined up until that point of the program cases made by investigators would not have passed legal muster in a court of law. Reportedly, lawyers for the AG determined that investigators might have entrapped many of those targeted in the sting , thereby making the cases unprosecutable on constitutional grounds.

Upon learning about the legal flaws in the accumulated cases, a source said Ryan went into a tirade, demanding that staff lawyers be briefed by investigators in all future investigations.

RFM NEWS is reporting the sting operation was originally funded by the Attorney General’s office itself. However, the AG eventually received a federal grant for $850,000 with the help of Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert.

More than one source within the Attorney General’s office has confirmed some of the weapons obtained during the Internet sting may not be accounted for, including the necessary parts to build an automatic machine gun, which was also purchased by AG staff during the covert gun buy.

Dan Curry, press secretary for Attorney General Jim Ryan, confirmed that a press conference announcing the sting had been postponed. “We contemplated conducting a press conference but backed off when we studied the new Illinois Supreme Court rules, which prohibited our office from displaying evidence in the case,” said Curry. Jim Ryan had intended to display the weapons as part of a photo op during the press conference. However, questions remain why the results of the investigation were never released to the public. Jim Ryan’s office would not confirm the status of the gun buy operation and/or how much of the $850,000 has been spent on the sting and any subsequent investigations involving firearms.

Some law enforcement experts question whether the AG’s office should be participating in this type of activity because such investigations usually fall under the jurisdiction of agencies more suited to the task. RFM NEWS has learned officials at the U.S. Postal Service were not pleased when they learned of the Internet gun buy sting because they were not given advance notification about the operation. The U.S. Postal Inspection Service’s frustration was compounded by the fact firearms were traveling through the U.S. mail without that agency’s knowledge.

In June of 2000, Jim Ryan first publicly announced his office would become more active in such investigations, when the press was informed the AG’s office was pursuing three cases involving the alleged sale of firearms, over the Internet and at gun shows. One such case involved a Michigan man who sold firearms over the Internet without ever seeing the individual to whom he was selling.

“Apparently, the Attorney General’s office was not aware they were unknowingly walking into the middle of an ongoing criminal investigation,” said a source within the AG’s office who preferred to be unnamed. “Our people got involved and basically compromised a good case. Ultimately, the Attorney General’s office pled the matter down, presumably to get out form under an embarrassing situation. The defendant walked away with little more than a slap on the wrist.”

RFM NEWS has learned a high ranking official from the Bureau of ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) in Washington, D.C. personally contacted Jim Ryan over this matter, making it clear the AG’s interference in the case was not appreciated by the ATF.

According to reports, there have been circumstances when federal law enforcement has sought cooperation from the Illinois Attorney General’s office without success, further compounding the friction between these agencies. RFM NEWS has learned the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) sought assistance from the Illinois Attorney General in the investigation of nearly 1,700 possible cases of the Internet being used for the procurement of child pornography. The AG reportedly refused to assist the USPIS in a project called Operation Avalanche.

Dan Curry, Jim Ryan’s press secretary would not answer repeated questions from RFM NEWS concerning the status of the Internet gun sting.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org  

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Afghanistan: A U.S. Marine On The Front Line Tells True Story About War On Terror

CORRECTION + APOLOGY

RFFM.org has learned the letter below, purported to be from a U.S. Marine stationed somewhere in Afghanistan, is a hoax.  It was brought to RFFM.org's attention by one of its readers.  Apparently, a version of this letter first surfaced in 2001, but since then it has been slightly altered to give the perception it is current by mentioning President Obama's failure to act swiftly on a call for more troops in the war on terror.  When informed of this, Major John Birch who forwarded RFFM.org the letter said, "My source was the INTELIST which proves even the Intel Community can be fooled.  I was."  RFFM.org's motto is: "In a democratic republic, good governance is dependent upon an informed citizenry."  In this circumstance, RFFM.org failed in its responsibility to properly vet the letter and we apologize to our readers.--Daniel Zanoza, Executive Director, RFFM.org. 

***********

EDITOR'S NOTE:  The following was sent to RFFM.org by Major John Birch, a retired U.S. Army Intelligence officer.  It was written by a U.S. Marine currently serving in Afghanistan.  For obvious reasons, the Marine's name has been redacted.  RFFM.org has not edited the Marine's comments in any way.  It is not politically correct and it contains language not meant for children.  It is an account of life on the front lines from a member of America's military who is telling it "like it is."

Letter From A U.S. Marine On The Front Line!!!

From a Recon Marine in Afghanistan

From the Sand Pit.  It's freezing here.  I'm sitting on hard, cold
dirt between rocks and shrubs at the base of the Hindu Kush Mountain,
along the Dar 'yoi Pomir River, watching a hole that leads to a tunnel
that leads to a cave.  Stake out, my friend, and no pizza delivery for
thousands of miles.

I also glance at the area around my ass every ten to fifteen
seconds to avoid another scorpion sting.  I've actually given up
battling the chiggers and sand fleas, but them scorpions give a jolt
like a cattle prod.  Hurts like a bastard.  The antidote tastes like
transmission fluid, but God bless the Marine Corps for the five vials of
it in my pack.

The one truth the Taliban cannot escape is that, believe it or
not, they are human beings, which means they have to eat food and drink
water.  That requires couriers and that's where an old bounty hunter
like me comes in handy.  I track the couriers, locate the tunnel
entrances and storage facilities, type the info into the handheld, shoot
the coordinates up to the satellite link that tells the air commanders
where to drop the hardware. We bash some heads for a while, then I track
and record the new movement.

It's all about intelligence.  We haven't even brought in the
snipers yet.  These scurrying rats have no idea what they're in for.  We
are but days away from cutting off supply lines and allowing the
eradication to begin.

I dream of bin Laden waking up to find me standing over him with
my boot on his throat as I spit into his face and plunge my
nickel-plated Bowie knife through his frontal lobe.  But you know me,
I'm a romantic.  I've said it before and I'll say it again: This country
blows, man.  It's not even a country.  There are no roads, there's no
infrastructure, there's no government.  This is an inhospitable, rock
pit shit hole ruled by eleventh century warring tribes.  There are no
jobs here like we know jobs.

Afghanistan offers two ways for a man to support his family:
join the opium trade or join the army.  That's it.  Those are your
options.  Oh, I forgot, you can also live in a refugee camp and eat
plum-sweetened, crushed beetle paste and squirt mud like a goose with
stomach flu, if that's your idea of a party.  But the smell alone of
those 'tent cities of the walking dead' is enough to hurl you into the
poppy fields to cheerfully scrape bulbs for eighteen hours a day.

I've been living with these Tajiks and Uzbeks, and Turkmen and
even a couple of Pushtuns, for over a month-and-a-half now, and this
much I can say for sure:  These guys, all of 'em, are Huns...  actual,
living Huns.  They LIVE to fight.  It's what they do.  It's ALL they do.
They have no respect for anything, not for their families, nor for each
other, nor for themselves..  They claw at one another as a way of life.
They play polo with dead calves and force their five-year-old sons into
human cockfights to defend the family honor.  Huns, roaming packs of
savage, heartless beasts who feed on each other's barbarism.  Cavemen
with AK-47's.  Then again, maybe I'm just cranky.

I'm freezing my ass off on this stupid hill because my lap
warmer is running out of juice, and I can't recharge it until the sun
comes up in a few hours.  Oh yeah!  You like to write letters, right?
Do me a favor, Bizarre.  Write a letter to CNN and tell Wolf and
Anderson and that awful, sneering, pompous Aaron Brown to stop calling
the Taliban 'smart.'  They are not smart.  I suggest CNN invest in a
dictionary because the word they are looking for is 'cunning.'  The
Taliban are cunning, like jackals and hyenas and wolverines.  They are
sneaky and ruthless, and when confronted, cowardly.  They are hateful,
malevolent parasites who create nothing and destroy everything else.
Smart..  Pfft.  Yeah, they're real smart.

They've spent their entire lives reading only one book (and not
a very good one, as books go) and consider hygiene and indoor plumbing
to be products of the devil.  They're still figuring out how to work a
Bic lighter.  Talking to a Taliban warrior about improving his quality
of life is like trying to teach an ape how to hold a pen; eventually he
just gets frustrated and sticks you in the eye with it.

OK, enough.  Snuffle will be up soon, so I have to get back to
my hole.  Covering my tracks in the snow takes a lot of practice, but
I'm good at it.

Please, I tell you and my fellow Americans to turn off the TV
sets and move on with your lives.  The story line you are getting from
CNN and other news agencies is utter bullshit and designed not to
deliver truth but rather to keep you glued to the screen through the
commercials.  We've got this one under control.  The worst thing you guys
can do right now is sit around analyzing what we're doing over here,
because you have no idea what we're doing, and really, you don't want to
know.  We are your military, and we are doing what you sent us here to
do.

You wanna help?  Tell Obama to get off his a** and send the
troops we asked for.  Also, Buy Bonds America .

Saucy Jack

Recon Marine in Afghanistan

Semper Fi

"Freedom is not free...but the U.S.  Marine Corps will pay most of your share".

Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

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

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org  

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Dominant Media Fails In Its Duty To Report On Illinois' DCFS: Horror Stories Abound

EDITOR'S NOTE:  This column was first posted on the Illinois Family Institute's web site http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=34620.  Go to IFI for related stories on DCFS and other issues related to the pro-family agenda.

by Daniel T. Zanoza

A little over a year ago, I wrote a column http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/05/rffmorg-exclusi.html regarding the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services' (DCFS) supposed confidential hotline.  The DCFS hotline itself was a means by which Illinois citizens could report cases of child abuse and/or neglect.  I had a personal experience regarding the use of the confidential hotline which was disturbing, to say the least.
 
I was aware of a family who lived near me in which children were exposed to an unhealthy environment according to anyone's standards.  During a visit to the home, three children (all under the age of ten) were found to be living in filthy conditions.  There was animal excrement on the floors and carpeting which obviously exposed not only the children, but the entire family, to disease.  My wife saw these children walking around in the home barefoot, negotiating their way around feces.  Indeed, when the door to the home was opened, the stench was overwhelming, literally causing us to gag.  While it was apparent that the situation was something this family considered normal, I felt a duty to report this matter to DCFS.
 
I used the DCFS "confidential" hotline in my attempt to notify the state agency regarding the unhealthy conditions these young children were subjected to.  However, to my surprise, I could not make a "confidential" phone call to a hotline which, for many reasons, is designed to protect the confidentiality of those reporting the abuse and neglect of children.  After inquiries, I was told by a DCFS spokesman that those using the hotline had to reveal their personal information or else DCFS would not document their calls.
 
After learning this, I contacted major news organizations in Illinois to expose DCFS' new policy.  It is obvious why a hotline devoted to protecting children must be confidential.  Let me first relate a prior experience I had with the Illinois Dept. of Children and Family Services.
 
A number of years ago, when I resided in the Chicagoland area, I knew a drug-addicted couple who lived in my neighborhood.  I had known this family for years-- in fact, since grade school.  The woman had recently given birth to a child who was born with a drug addiction as a result of her mother's drug use during pregnancy.  Though I wasn't at their home often, it was obvious to me that this baby was in grave danger.  After months of observing the family, the child--who was now six months of age-- had not gained much weight, if any.  In official terms, this is called "failure to thrive."  I thought the situation was so serious and life-threatening to this child, I called DCFS, revealing my name to the state agency.  In response to my report to what was then truly a confidential hotline, a DCFS caseworker visited the home. During a visit to the home, the caseworker saw the condition of the infant, who was living in a dark and damp basement while possibly enduring sexual abuse as well.
 
During the DCFS caseworker's visit, she made a trip to the bathroom,  leaving her files in clear view of the family who I had reported on. They then looked through the caseworker's notes and found my name listed as the individual who filed the complaint.
 
Obviously, the family was not happy with me.  I received threats regarding the incident.  This situation proved to me the importance of confidentiality in reporting instances of child abuse.  (By the way, the baby was ultimately removed from the home due to "failure to thrive."  The child was adopted by a responsible family member, and, to my knowledge, this child is now leading a happy, healthy life, approaching her college years.)
 
I relate this story because I now know DCFS' new policy--which does not allow for reports of child abuse in confidentiality--is putting many thousands of children in danger.  We often hear reports about people who say "I didn't want to get involved."  Unfortunately, this is a result of a culture where too many people feel their involvement in what may be a life or death situation for a child (or for anyone for that matter) is not worth what may come back to them regarding their attempt to be a caring member of our society, simply for being good citizens.
 
The protection of our children should be a priority in our culture.  I do not understand why the mainstream media does not pick up on the story regarding the DCFS hotline and its policy regarding the lack of confidentiality.  However, in essence, DCFS, which I consider a rogue state agency in desperate need of deep and thorough reform, has received a pass from the dominant media, a pass which is putting the lives of children in danger.
 
Since my original story on the DCFS "confidential" hotline, I have received literally dozens of horror stories regarding the actions of this state-run agency, not all related to the confidentiality issue.  Many of the stories had merit and were heart-breaking.  Other reports I received were simply from disgruntled individuals who disagreed with DCFS' decision regarding their family.
 
The duty of the press is to act as a "check and balance" for our government and our society.  The protection of children should be the highest priority of everyone, especially a media which finds itself more interested in political intrigue and the advancement of a liberal political agenda than it does reporting on things that should truly matter.
 
In these days when child abuse is rampant due to the collapse of pro-family values (i.e., divorce, children born out of wedlock, abortion, etc.), children are treated more as a commodity than they are as human beings.  The mainstream media is filled with stories of abduction, sexual abuse, and murder of the most innocent and vulnerable in our society.  Perhaps if the dominant media reported on an agency whose duty is to protect children, it would reveal the root cause of why children are in danger.  And maybe, just maybe, this is a place the press doesn't want to go.

Daniel Zanoza also writes a monthly column for the Illinois Family Institute, titled Media Watch.  IFI's main page:  http://www.illinoisfamily.org/

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org  

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Springfield Nativity Scene Draws Standing Room Only Crowd to Illinois state Capitol Rotunda Building

On December 1st, 2009, a standing room only crowd attended the second annual opening day ceremony for the Springfield, Illinois Nativity Scene.  The display now stands in the center of the state Capitol Rotunda Building and will be on display throughout the Christmas season.

The Springfield Nativity Scene Committee (SNSC), who coordinated the event, would like to express its deepest appreciation to the Chicago-based Thomas More Society who underwrote the Nativity Scene for the second year in a row.

The SNSC would also like to thank the Illinois Family Institute and Isringhausen Imports of Springfield who were co-sponsors of this year's display.

"It was a wonderful experience," said Dan Zanoza, Chairman of the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee.  "It was exciting to see the public turn out in such great numbers, especially on a work day and, hopefully, those who visit the state Capitol Building in the future will take a moment to view the display depicting the birth of Jesus Christ."

The 25 members of the Joyful Senior Singers & Ringers from Decatur’s Tabernacle Baptist Church, directed by David Cooprider, wowed those in attendance with superb renditions of Christmas carols.

Speeches were given by Thomas Brejcha, SNSC's legal counsel and President of the Thomas More Society; Dan Zanoza; and Beth Rogers, an SNSC member and resident of Springfield.  Rogers referenced America's long standing adherence to the Judeo-Christian ethic, as she reviewed quotes from past presidents--including George Washington and Abraham Lincoln--who spoke of the role faith played in America's history. 

The SNSC would also like to thank volunteers, including Carol Griffith of Springfield--who signed during the event for the deaf and hard of hearing; Rev. Nancy Cahalan of the Grantfork United Church of Christ who gave an invocation which began the noon hour program; Jim Hostetter of Lincoln and Jean Cohoon of Eureka.

In addition, the SNSC would like to express its gratitude to fellow Committee member Pastor Dustin Fulton of the Jefferson Street Christian Church of Lincoln for the church's storing the display and to Everett Crowell (also from Jeff St. Christian Church) for transporting and erecting the Nativity Scene--which was designed and constructed by Karl Fritz and his son Timothy Fritz, master craftsman both of Chicago.

Finally, the SNSC would like to thank the Secretary of State's office for logistic support it offers all groups who desire to express free speech in the public square.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org   

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

RFFM.org's Exec. Dir. Dan Zanoza Discusses Springfield (IL) Nativity Scene & True Spirit of Christmas on Laurie Roth Show

Dr. Laurie Roth to interview Dan Zanoza regarding Springfield, Illinois Nativity Scene and attacks on the free expression of religious liberty in the public square

RFFM.org's Executive Director, Dan Zanoza, will be a guest on the Dr. Laurie Roth Show [www.therothshow.com] on December 3, 2009 between 4 and 5 P.M. Central time.

Broadcast out of Washington state on the IRN-USA Radio Network, Roth's radio talk show is nationally syndicated and "is on a mission to examine the issues based on right and wrong, not party politics."

Zanoza founded RFFM.org nearly 20 years ago.  The organization was formed to encourage objectivity in the mainstream media regarding coverage of social and political issues.  RFFM.org's motto is, "In a democratic republic, good governance is dependent upon an informed citizenry."

Laurie Roth is a hard-charging conservative radio personality.  Roth has broken many national stories, including being the first to detail the relationship between Barack Obama and convicted terrorist William Ayers.  Roth also writes a column for News With Views [www.newswithviews.com].

Roth and Zanoza will discuss the Second Annual Springfield (Illinois) Nativity Scene display.  Zanoza, RFFM.org's Executive Director, is also the Chairman of the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee (SNSC), and will join Roth in a timely discussion regarding the federal holiday of Christmas and the attempts by some to suppress the expression of religious liberty in the public square, guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  The Nativity Scene which stands in the Illinois state capitol Rotunda Building is possibly the only such display of its kind in a U.S. government building. 

Last year, the state of Washington had a Nativity Scene inside its state capitol.  However, due to the controversy created by those opposed to such religious displays, the state of Washington has decided to not allow displays of any kind inside its state capitol building, including exhibits concerning all forms of political or religious expression. 

"The Springfield Nativity Scene is even more special because of the decision made in the state of Washington," said Zanoza. 

The Dr. Laurie Roth radio program can be streamed at this link: http://www.usaradio.com/listen_live_usa2.php or go to the web site to see if the program is available in your local area: http://www.therothshow.com/listen07.htm. 
Listeners can call in to the show by dialing 1-877-999-Roth (7684).

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: Dan@rffm.org

Breast Cancer's Link to Abortion: The Daily Iowan Implies Catholic Doctors Can't Do Science

EDITOR'S NOTE:  Karen Malec is the President of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer.  Malec is one of the world's leading authorities on the relationship between abortion and breast cancer.  The following essay is a perfect illustration of how mainstream media bias has tried to silence the public debate over this issue.

 

Karen Malec, President, Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer *

 

On two occasions early in November, The Daily Iowan's opinion editor, Shawn Gude, invited a reader by the name of Rebecca Curtis to send him a 600-word rebuttal in response to a guest opinion written by University of Iowa law students, Amber Fricke and Amy Hirst, on October 27, 2009 that incorrectly stated that abortion does not increase breast cancer risk. [1] 

 

Curtis sent The Daily Iowan a rebuttal, but Gude rejected it on November 5 and invited her to send a revised rebuttal. She quickly responded by sending him a revised rebuttal, but on November 9, he rejected that too. Gude explained to Curtis, "While I appreciate your submission, I remain skeptical of some of your sources." 

 

Gude objected that Curtis had cited research published in The Linacre Quarterly, a publication of the Catholic Medical Association, and the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, a publication of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, even though both publications are peer-reviewed medical journals and the authors of the research papers in question are esteemed, international experts on the abortion-breast cancer link. [8,9] (The term "peer-reviewed" means that the scientific papers have been evaluated by an impartial panel of experts who recommend the papers for publication or rejection.) 

 

It appears that Gude and other editors had held Curtis' commentary to a higher standard of scrutiny than the commentary by Fricke and Hirst. The editors permitted Fricke and Hirst to cite the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, as well as two studies that have been proven in the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons to be fatally flawed. [2,3,4,5] Fricke and Hirst, who are members of the euphemistically named University of Iowa Law Students for Reproductive Justice, also cited the American Cancer Society's web page, "Is Abortion Linked to Breast Cancer?" [6]

 

Had the editors at the paper conducted a 5-minute search on PubMed, they would have learned that one of Fricke and Hirst's citations, a study named Melbye et al. 1997, actually reported a statistically significant 89% risk increase for women who have abortions after 18 weeks gestation, although researchers found no overall increase in risk. [2] (The American Cancer Society insults women's intelligence by using this study to deny an abortion-breast cancer link.)

Furthermore, Melbye's team found a dose effect of 3% per week of gestation until the abortion takes place, thereby fulfilling one of the criteria needed for establishing a cause-effect relationship. In other words, the longer a pregnant woman is exposed to the cancer-causing effects of an elevated estrogen level before her abortion takes place, the greater her breast cancer risk is (provided the abortion occurs before 32 weeks gestation). The breasts grow during a normal pregnancy because estrogen stimulates the mother's cancer-susceptible lobules to multiply. The longer she is pregnant before her abortion takes place, the more places she grows for cancers to start. 

Breast cancer risk plunges at 32 weeks and continues to plunge for each week thereafter until delivery at 40 weeks, as the fetus produces hormones that mature an increasing number of the mother's breast lobules into permanently cancer-resistant lobules. [7,8] By 40 weeks, 85% of the lobules are permanently cancer-resistant. Then, the mother is left with fewer places in her breasts for cancers to start. (That explains why full term pregnancy is protective against breast cancer.)

If The Daily Iowan's editors had conducted a PubMed search, they would have discovered a 1999 study by Melbye's team reporting that premature birth before 32 weeks gestation more than doubles breast cancer risk (a finding that supports an independent link between abortion and breast cancer). [7] Early premature birth, like abortion, is a short pregnancy exposing the mother's cancer-susceptible breast lobules to virtually the same pregnancy hormones, which result in the same structural changes and leave her with more places for breast cancers to start. 

Instead of considering the scientific evidence on how the breasts develop and function that had been presented in the journal, The Linacre Quarterly, Gude and his colleagues decided to shoot its messengers. [8]  Gude wrote to Curtis that he was "uneasy" about the use of a source from The Linacre Quarterly, which "exists to uphold the principles of the Catholic faith and morality as related to the science and practice of medicine."

What was Gude implying? That Catholic doctors can't do science? That they bend science to fit their religious beliefs? The implication is that Catholic doctors are incapable of objectivity when it comes to scientific research on abortion, unlike doctors of other faiths and atheists and agnostics (none of whom could possibly be biased in favor of abortion). If Gude had dared to imply that a Jewish medical journal was not credible because it exists to uphold the Jewish faith in the science and practice of medicine, consider the outrage that would follow.

Bias is not exclusively a one-way street that occurs only in the pro-life camp, but when bias goes the opposite way, in the direction of the pro-abortion camp, abortion enthusiasts in the media are indifferent, even if that bias endangers women's lives. For example, although cancer experts universally consider childbearing to be protective against breast cancer and an independent link between abortion and breast cancer has been studied for 53 years, cancer fundraising groups, like Susan G. Komen for the Cure, Breast Cancer Action and the National Breast Cancer Coalition, have included radicals among their leaders who had previously been associated with Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America and the American Civil Liberties Union. Why would it be in their interest to educate women about the three ways that abortion raises breast cancer risk?

 

Dr. Leslie Bernstein's bias in favor of abortion is overt, but no one would ever dream of insulting her by associating her religious faith (or lack of faith) with the way she has conducted herself as a scientist. Bernstein was a leader/moderator at the U.S. National Cancer Institute's phony workshop on the abortion-breast cancer link in 2003. After that workshop, she told CancerPage.com why she doesn't want women to know that abortion raises breast cancer risk. Note that she acknowledged that the younger a woman is when she has her first birth, the lower her breast cancer risk is. (It can't be denied that abortion is used to delay first full term pregnancies.) Bernstein said:

"The biggest bang for the buck is the first birth, and the younger you are, the better off you are. I would never be a proponent of going around and telling them that having babies is the way to reduce your risk.... I don't want the issue relating to induced abortion to breast cancer risk to be part of the mix of the discussion of induced abortion, its legality, its continued availability." [10]

Imagine the howls among abortion enthusiasts in the media if a reverse scenario had taken place. Pretend that Bernstein had been anti-abortion and had said she didn't want women to know there were health benefits associated with having an abortion (not that there really are health benefits). There would be no end to the doleful wailing among those members of the press, and the U.S. National Cancer Institute would resemble the storming of the Bastille during the French Revolution in 1789.

After hearing that The Daily Iowan's opinion editor had objected to a citation from The Linacre Quarterly, one physician declared that if the biological facts presented in that journal had been published on a bathroom wall, on parchment, on toilet paper or in the National Enquirer, they would still remain biological facts. If The Daily Iowan's editors had bothered to review the secondary references listed at the end of the article in The Linacre Quarterly, they would have found studies published in medical journals with politically correct names, such as the New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, British Journal of Cancer, and Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. [8]

Gude also objected that Curtis used the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons as a source. [9] He told Curtis that the Journal is "a political non-profit" (a description that could be applied to the American Medical Association); and he criticized the Journal for publishing articles that challenged scientific hypotheses concerning global warming and HIV/AIDS. He claimed, 

"It has also published reports claiming 'increases in (atmospheric carbon dioxide) during the 20th and 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate' and that HIV doesn't cause AIDS." 

Gude said both the American Cancer Society and the World Health Organization deny the abortion-breast cancer link. If Gude had been an opinion editor during the 1930's, would he have also rejected a commentary discussing Einstein's theory of relativity because 100 scientists had written essays disparaging it? 

Jane Orient, MD, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, commented on Gude's arguments. She wrote:

"How can one respond to this kind of attack? It is not a good faith assessment. But one might say:
 
"The validity of a scientific paper should be assessed by reading it, not by skimming the table of contents of the journal that published it.
 
"The Daily Iowan assumes the truth of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, which is based solely on UN computer models, the predictions of which are refuted by actual observations. Around 32,000 American scientists are on the record as agreeing with the statement that The Daily Iowan quotes. 
 
"The Daily Iowan assumes the truth of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis; the Journal has published a couple of articles pointing to difficulties with it. All scientific hypotheses are subject to efforts to disprove them; that is the nature of science.
 
"Apparently, the fact that WHO (World Health Organization), a heavily politicized international agency, questioned the abortion-breast cancer link tells The Daily Iowan it must be not worth looking at.
 
"This is apparently the reasoning process used by The Daily Iowan:
 
"A peer-reviewed scientific journal's publication of articles criticizing politically correct theories means everything in the Journal is worthless.
 
"A political agency's criticism of a politically incorrect hypothesis about an ABC (abortion-breast cancer) link means that all the evidence for an ABC link is worthless.
 
"What conclusions can one reach about the critical thinking skills, the scientific understanding, or the journalistic standards of The Daily Iowan?"

Breast cancer is an extremely common disease, and abortion is a common, elective procedure. Under these circumstances, what possible right do journalists have to commit journalistic malpractice by ignoring the opinion of eight medical organizations that acknowledge that abortion raises breast cancer risk, independently of the recognized breast cancer risk of abortion - the loss of the protective effect of childbearing? 

Consequently, the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is presenting the Daily Iowan's editors with two easy challenges that will help them cast light on the cancer fundraising industry's truthfulness. 

First, no expert has ever challenged or even attempted to refute the biological basis for the link presented in The Linacre Quarterly or anywhere else, for that matter. If the editors have a sincere desire to protect women's health, then why not ask the American Cancer Society, the U.S. National Cancer Institute and Susan G. Komen for the Cure to review Dr. Angela Lanfranchi's paper in The Linacre Quarterly and identify any errors? Why not challenge them to refute the biological reasons for the abortion-breast cancer link? Cancer groups won't do it because Lanfranchi's presentation is physiologically correct.

Second, since medical texts acknowledge that childlessness, delayed first full term pregnancy and small family size raise breast cancer risk, the editors should ask the cancer fundraising industry two simple questions with two obvious answers. If a woman aborts all of her pregnancies, will she be childless?  Also, who has the greater breast cancer risk - the 15-year-old who has an abortion or the one who has a full term pregnancy? The second question has to do with the recognized breast cancer risk of abortion - the loss of the protective effect of childbearing.

Even Dr. Lynn Rosenberg (Boston Medical School), an expert witness for Florida abortion providers in 1999 was forced to set aside the cancer establishment's intellectual dishonesty when she testified under oath as an expert witness for the Center for Reproductive Rights in a lawsuit challenging Florida's parental notification law. Preferring not to perjure herself by pretending that abortion that abortion does not cause women to delay their first full term pregnancies, she said she agreed with this statement:

"A woman who finds herself pregnant at age 15 will have a higher breast cancer risk if she chooses to abort that pregnancy than if she carries the pregnancy to term, correct?" [11]

Breast cancer increases with age at first full term pregnancy. A delayed first full term pregnancy lengthens the period between puberty and first full term pregnancy (the "susceptibility window") when nearly all of the breast lobules are immature and cancer-susceptible and exposed to the cancer-causing effects of estrogen increases during monthly menstrual cycles, resulting in an accumulation of the effects of cancer-causing substances.

 

Since the loss of the protective effect of childbearing is considered settled science, most studies on the abortion-breast cancer link do not compare the effect of having an abortion with the effect of having a full term pregnancy. Rather, most studies compare the effect of having an abortion with the effect of not having had that pregnancy (thereby addressing the question of an independent link - whether abortion further raises risk by leaving the breasts with more places for cancers to start).  

 

Certainly, it would be bad social policy to encourage unmarried teens and young women to have babies. However, Professor Joel Brind from Baruch College, City University of New York, has rightly argued that the already-pregnant woman has only two realistic choices. Either she aborts, or she has a baby. She doesn't have the choice of never having had that pregnancy. Her doctor is ethically and legally obligated to obtain informed consent from her before performing an abortion. That means telling her that experts agree if she chooses an abortion, her risk of developing breast cancer will be greater than it will be if she chooses to have a baby(because she is delaying her first full term pregnancy). The woman may be able to sue her doctor for medical malpractice if he fails to provide her with this minimal information (as five women have successfully sued their doctors who failed to warn them about the risks of breast cancer and emotional harm). [12]

 

It takes a special kind of cruelty to cover up a risk that has caused 1.5 million Americans to develop breast cancer and 300,000 deaths since 1973 (based on 50 million abortions, a 30% increased risk of breast cancer for women with abortions, and a 10% lifetime risk for the average American woman without abortion). 

 

The American Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen for the Cure and other cancer groups could have done a great deal of good by telling women the truth about the abortion-breast cancer link. Instead, they use studies that have been proven in medical journals to be significantly flawed (even fraudulent) to make their argument that abortion does not raise breast cancer risk. [13-22] 

 

They didn't tell women the truth about the risks of using the pill and combined hormone replacement therapy, although the data were available in the 1980s. Now they're not telling women the truth about the abortion-breast cancer link. Biased members of the media are their enablers.

 

References:

1. "Recent DI advertising supplement strikingly inaccurate," By Amber Fricke and Amy Hirst, The Daily Iowan, October 27, 2009. Available at: http://www.dailyiowan.com/2009/10/27/Opinions/13910.html?dsq=21109498#disqus_thread

2. Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Olson JH, Frisch M, Westergaard T, Helweg-Larsen K, Andersen PK. Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1997;336:81-85.

3. Michels K, Xue Fei, Colditz G., Willett W. Induced and Spontaneous Abortion and Incidence of Breast Cancer Among Young Women. Arch Int Med 2007;167:814-820.

4. Brind J, Chinchilli VM. Letter. Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1997;336:1834-1835.

5. Brind J.  Induced abortion and breast cancer: A critical analysis of the report of the Harvard Nurses Study II. J Am Phys Surg 2007;12(2)38-39. Available at:  http://www.jpands.org/vol12no2/brind.pdf

6. "Is abortion linked to breast cancer?" American Cancer Society web page. Visited November 24, 2009. Available at: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Can_Having_an_Abortion_Cause_or_Contribute_to_Breast_Cancer.asp?sitearea= .

7. Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Andersen A-M N, Westergaard T, Andersen PK. Preterm delivery and risk of breast cancer. Bri J Cancer 1999;80:609-13.

8. Lanfranchi, A. Normal breast physiology: The reasons hormonal contraceptives and induced abortion increase breast cancer risk. The Linacre Quarterly 2009;76:236-249. Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/LQ_76_3_2_Lanfranchi.pdf

9. Brind J. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: A critical review of recent studies based on prospective data. J Am Phys Surg Vol. 10, No. 4 (Winter 2005) 105-110. Available at: http://www.jpands.org/vol10no4/brind.pdf

10. Lowe RM, NCI scientific panel concludes abortion has no impact on breast cancer risk. CancerPage.com, March 3, 2003.  Available at:

http://www.cancerpage.com/news/article.asp?id=5601   Accessed November 18, 2009.

11. Rosenberg (1999) NW FL Women's Health vs. State of FL, FL Circuit Ct., 2nd circ., videotape deposition of 11/18/99, pp. 77-78. Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/rosenberg's_testimony.htm

12. See the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer's Legal Issues web page at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/Your_Rights.htm

13. Brind J. Breast cancer in relation to abortion: results from the EPIC study. Int J Cancer. 2008 Feb 15;122(4):960-1.

14. Brind J. California Teachers Study report on incomplete pregnancy is flawed. Contraception 2009;Mar;79(3):240.

15. Brind J. The abortion-breast cancer connection. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly Summer 2005; p. 303-329. Available at: <http://www.AbortionBreastCancer.com/Brind_NCBQ.PDF>.

16. Lanfranchi A. The abortion-breast cancer link revisited. Ethics and Medics (November 2004) Vol. 29, No. 11, p. 1-4.  Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/news/041120/index.htm

17. Furton E. Editorial. The corruption of science by ideology. Ethics and Medics (Dec. 2004) Vol. 29, No. 11, p. 1-2.  Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/E+MDec2004-EFurtonarticle.PDF

18. Schlafly A. Legal implications of a link between abortion and breast cancer. J Am Phys Surgeons 2005;10:11-14. Available at: http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/aschlafly.pdf

19. Lanfranchi A. The science, studies and sociology of the abortion-breast cancer link. Research Bulletin 2005;18:1-8. Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/June2005.pdf

20. Lanfranchi A. The breast physiology and the epidemiology of the abortion breast cancer link. Imago Hominis 2005;12(3): 228-236. http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/Lanfranchi060201.pdf

21. Brind J. Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk: A Critical Analysis of the Report of the Harvard Nurses Study II. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons(Summer 2007) Vol. 12, No. 2, p. 38-39.  Available at: http://www.jpands.org/vol12no2/brind.pdf

22. Lanfranchi, A. The federal government and academic texts as barriers to informed consent. J Am Phys Surg (Spring 2008).  Available at: http://www.jpands.org/vol13no1/lanfranchi.pdf.

* Karen Malec, President
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
P.O. Box 957133, Hoffman Estates, IL 60195
www.AbortionBreastCancer.com
response@abortionbreastcancer.com
1-877-803-0102 (toll free)

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org 

 

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Second Annual Springfield (Illinois) Nativity Scene Display to Stand in State Capitol Rotunda Building: Opening Day Ceremony December 1st 2009 between 12 Noon and 1 P.M.

The Springfield Nativity Scene Committee (SNSC) will again erect a Nativity Scene that will stand in Illinois’ state Capitol Rotunda Building.

Opening day ceremonies regarding the Springfield Nativity Scene (SNS) will take place between 12 Noon and 1 P.M. on December 1^st in the state Capitol Rotunda located at South 2nd Street & East Capitol Avenue in Springfield, Illinois.  The public is invited to attend the event.

The Springfield Nativity Scene--which was originally underwritten by the Chicago-based Thomas More Society--is meant to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ.  This year the display is co-sponsored by Isringhausen Imports of Springfield and the Illinois Family Institute (IFI).

The SNSC’s Nativity Scene display is also an exercise of liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.  Previous court rulings have upheld expressions of free speech, including demonstrations of faith, which are legal in the public square, as long as such religious displays are privately-funded.

"The right of private citizens to proclaim their religious faith and faith-based values in the public square was upheld in 1989 when Chief Judge James B. Parsons of the federal district court in Chicago held there could be no discrimination against religious expression on Daley Plaza in Chicago where, ever since, a Nativity Scene has been displayed annually," said Thomas Brejcha, legal counsel for the SNSC and President of the Chicago-based Thomas More Society.  "As political speeches and rallies are commonplace at our State Capitol, free speech rights encompass religious speech on equal terms."

The Joyful Senior Singers & Ringers from Decatur’s Tabernacle Baptist Church will perform during the Noon hour event.  Rev. Nancy Cahalan of the Grantfork United Church of Christ will give the invocation.  Short speeches will be given by Daniel Zanoza, Chairman, SNSC; Thomas Brejcha; David Smith, Executive Director, IFI; and Beth Rogers, a Springfield resident and member of the SNSC.

“This year’s second annual Nativity Scene display is a celebration of Christmas, which is a federal holiday,” said Zanoza.  “In recent years, there has been a clear and blatant attack on our rights to express faith in the public square.  The SNS is not meant to be political in any way.  The Nativity Scene standing in the Illinois state Capitol Building demonstrates religious liberty does not end at the doors of a public building, a school house or anywhere in the public square.”

The Nativity Scene will be on display from Dec. 1st through Christmas.

For more information on the SNS, contact:

Daniel Zanoza: (217) 314-0211

Thomas Brejcha: (312) 782-1680

Or e-mail the SNSC at: springfieldnativityscene@xmail99.com

Springfield Nativity Scene Committee

Thomas Brejcha, Esq.
Chicago-based Thomas More Society
 
Eunice Conn, Polo
 
Karl Fritz, Chicago 
 
Pastor Dustin Fulton
Jefferson St. Christian Church
Lincoln
 
Daniel Gura, Lake Zurich 
 
State Sen. Chris Lauzen, Aurora
acting as a private citizen

Beth Rogers, Springfield
 
Arlene Sawicki, South Barrington 

David Smith, Illinois Family Institute
 
Julie Zanoza, Lincoln 
 
Daniel T. Zanoza, Chairman

Lawmakers Play Video Games While Denying The Wishes Of WE THE PEOPLE

Connecticut Legislators at Work?

Guest Commentary by LYLE J. RAPACKI, Ph.D.*

* Protective Intelligence and Assessment Specialist
Consultant at Behavioral Analysis and Threat Assessment
Independent Intelligence and Information Warfare Analyst

The disrespect, the contempt, the arrogance, the sense of entitlement and elitism by the preponderant majority of those in the U.S. Congress and Senate has become unquestionable.  The real question is:  Will WE THE PEOPLE exercise our right to "vote the bums out!"  Something else DOES need to be said; a message the Congress WILL hear since they couldn't hear the message of the Town halls, the two rallies in Washington, D.C., the wishes of the people to vote down the healthcare legislation is this: WE THE PEOPLE are coming after your jobs...McCain, you are NOT safe just because you reached the pinnacle of your career by running for President.  The same sentiment goes to all the rest in Congress who have demonstrated a level of arrogance and disrespect to the people, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, National Sovereignty, and the financial integrity of this country.  Shame on all of you. 

[See photo of Connecticut legislators below, playing poker on-line, while our Nation stands on the brink of irreversible economic disaster.] 
 
The Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate talk as if President Reagan were their guiding light, but they act like Jimmy Carter is the example of leadership they choose to employ.  And they have the arrogant audacity to come to us, their constituents, and think we can't discern the difference. 
 
Well...WE THE PEOPLE are slow to anger, we are forgiving, we are a trusting lot who want to believe the best in our leaders, but the preponderant majority of you have betrayed our trust, and you have proven you are more quick to compromise principles than to stand and not bend the values which President Reagan spoke, and you all claim to like so much.  
 
This August 2009 AP photo by Jessica Hill of the Connecticut legislature speaks volumes, and so will WE THE PEOPLE come the next election.

 

********
 
Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org  
 
NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

ACLU Again Not Challenging Springfield, Illinois Nativity Scene: Isn't That Special! It Is

Springfield Nativity Scene To Stand In Illinois State Capitol Rotunda Building For Second Year:  ACLU Says It Supports Constitutional Rights To Express Religious Liberty In the Public Square

 

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director of RFFM.org and Chairman of the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee

 

For the second year a row, a Nativity Scene will stand in the state Capitol Rotunda Building in Springfield, Illinois.  Last Christmas season, the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee (SNSC) made history with the financial and legal assistance of the Chicago-based Thomas More Society (TMS) and the support of private donations. 

 

An article written by Kurt Erickson of the Bloomington Pantagraph http://www.pantagraph.com/news/local/article_6cb5244a-ad00-11de-be5d-001cc4c002e0.html revealed the Illinois American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had also applied for and was granted a permit which would allow the organization to put up their own display in 2009--which I understand will include a copy of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution--which will stand on a table.  I don't know what the ACLU is celebrating and I am not privy to exactly what the ACLU exhibit will look like because they haven't consulted me regarding the issue.  However, I think it is safe to say the ACLU's display will not be celebrating the Christmas season.

 

Last year, in a statement issued to the media, the Illinois ACLU acknowledged they recognized the Constitutionality of the Nativity Scene display.  I'm sure this decision was made because someone within the organization--which many Americans would agree, at every opportunity, has opposed any expression of faith in the public square--has indeed read the First Amendment. 

 

This is why, if, in fact, reports are accurate regarding the ACLU's planned display of the U.S. Constitution and the Establishment Clause therein, I welcome their exhibit and I hope everyone who visits the Nativity Scene will take a moment to read the document which was penned by our nation's Founding Fathers.  Subsequently, I express my appreciation to the ACLU for its "support" of the Springfield Nativity Scene.  Well, I'm sure the ACLU is not exactly writing out a check to financially assist the SNSC and the Nativity Scene display, but it is nice to know this far left-leaning organization understands the Constitution of the United States of America.  Quite frankly, my first reaction when I heard the Illinois ACLU was going to display the First Amendment during this Christmas season, was,  "I wonder if they ever read it?"  Obviously, someone in the ACLU has, although the public would not know it by the organization's relentless attacks on the expression of religious liberty in the public square.  

 

Here is one thing I am sure of.  If the Springfield Nativity Scene--which will stand in a government building--were unconstitutional--the ACLU would definitely have filed a legal challenge to the display by now.  Tom Brejcha, the President of the Chicago-based Thomas More Society http://www.thomasmoresociety.org/ explains why the ACLU is no longer challenging such religious displays.  "The right of private citizens to proclaim their religious faith and faith-based values in the public square was upheld in 1989 when Chief Judge James B. Parsons of the federal district court in Chicago held there could be no discrimination against religious expression on Daley Plaza in Chicago where, ever since, a Nativity Scene has been displayed annually," said Brejcha.  "As political speeches and rallies are commonplace at our State Capitol, free speech rights encompass religious speech on equal terms."

 

The precedent for the Springfield Nativity Scene was first set in a federal court ruling titled, "Grutzmacher vs. Chicago Public Building Commission" in 1989 which stated such displays were constitutional on government property as long as they are supported by private funds. 

 

Many Americans wonder why the ACLU has been successful in their efforts to discourage individuals and groups who express their rights regarding expressions of faith in public venues.  Quite frankly, the ACLU operates primarily through the use of intimidation.  Most individuals or organizations do not have the funds or access to legal representation in order to fight off lawsuits filed by the ACLU or organizations with similar goals like "Americans United for Separation of Church and State."  In fact, there are also good people and groups who do not understand what the Constitution says about the expression of religious liberty in the public square. 

 

I recently attended a pro-family event and spoke with some wonderful people who erected a Nativity Scene display in a small town located in central Illinois.  The lawyers for that town told the group, in order for them to put up a Nativity Scene on public property, they must also sponsor and pay for displays regarding other faiths.  For example, they were inaccurately told they must also put up a Menorah celebrating Hanukkah; something related to the Islamic faith; and possibly a display representing those who have no faith at all.  Again, this is an inaccurate interpretation of the rights we have as citizens of the United States.  Indeed, to make it clear, I welcome the Menorah--which stood in the Illinois Capitol Building in 2008--and I hope the group responsible for that display again erects another in 2009.  However, my point is there are city officials throughout the country who do not understand the rights which made the Springfield Nativity Scene possible. 

 

Therefore, my thanks goes out to the ACLU for its unintentional support of the Springfield, Illinois Nativity Scene which will be officially celebrated in an event on December 1st, 2009 between 12 Noon and 1 P.M.  The official "unveiling" will take place in the state Capitol Rotunda Building and all members of the public are invited and encouraged to attend. 

 

I would also like to express my deepest appreciation for the fair and balanced coverage the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee received from the dominant media in central Illinois.  I originally hail from the Chicagoland area and, upon moving to central Illinois, I quickly learned the press operates under the true tenets of honest journalism in this area.  This is in stark contrast to how the dominant press operates in major cities across the United States, like Chicago. 

 

This year a Nativity Scene will stand in the Daley Civic Center Plaza as well.  The depiction of Christ's birth has stood in the heart of downtown Chicago since 1989 and is erected each year shortly after Thanksgiving Day.  A virtual army of volunteers help out to erect the life-sized display. 

 

As Americans, we have rights guaranteed to us by the U.S. Constitution.  However, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, these inalienable rights are given to all men from our Creator.  This is what the Springfield Nativity Scene is really all about.  But it has a secondary purpose as well.  The Nativity Scene display is meant to inform the public that our religious liberty does not end at the door to a public building, at the door to a school house or anywhere in America.  Therefore, again, I'd like to express my thanks to the ACLU.  In a strange way, they validate such expressions of religious faith in the public square, though I know it is not their intent.  In truth, the reported display of the First Amendment by the ACLU is not really meant to approve of the Springfield Nativity Scene and similar displays in any way.  The radical organization's efforts are meant to generate funds from those Americans who oppose the rights granted to us all.  Many such individuals or organizations would simply like to have groups like the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee go away.  But we are not going away.  And I hope others across the country will recognize our religious liberties are under attack and the rights we now cherish and celebrate may not exist forever.  Unless we stand up against these forces, our rights to publicly express our faith could become a thing of the past.

 

RELATED ARTICLES: 

 

YouTube video on the 2008 Nativity Scene by David Spencer of the Springfield State Journal-Register:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCChvKTHS1M

 

Second Annual Springfield (Illinois) Nativity Scene Display to Stand in State Capitol Rotunda Building: Opening Day Ceremony December 1st 2009 between 12 Noon and 1 P.M.

http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2009/11/second-annual-springfield-illinois-nativity-scene-display-to-stand-in-state-capitol-rotunda-building.html

 

Nativity scene to be back in Capitol this Christmas by Kurt Erickson of the Bloomington Pantagraph:  http://www.pantagraph.com/news/local/article_6cb5244a-ad00-11de-be5d-001cc4c002e0.html

 

Nativity Scene To Again Stand In Illinois State Capitol Rotunda:  http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2009/10/springfield-nativity-scene-to-again-stand-in-state-capitol-rotunda-building-a-celebration-of-first-a.html  posted Oct. 11, 2009

 

Second item in SPRINGFIELD STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER article by Doug Finke:  

http://www.sj-r.com/opinions/x801093697/Statehouse-Insider-Just-imagine-the-political-ads-in-January posted Nov. 08, 2009

 

Info on how you can help support the Springfield Nativity Scene display in Illinois State Capitol:  http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2009/11/info-on-how-you-can-help-support-the-springfield-nativity-scene-display-in-illinois-state-capitol.html

 

********

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  Dan@rffm.org

 

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.