July 23, 2008

Did Dobson's Tacit Support of McCain Doom Huckabee's V-P Chances?

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director
 
Trying to figure out the political mind of Focus on the Family leader Dr. James Dobson is like attempting to solve a Rubik's Cube while blind and, folks, I tried it and it can't be done.  That's a bit of hyperbole I threw in this column just to make a point because even I'm not that stupid.  But I would like to ask Dr. Dobson a question.  Just the other day, Dobson apparently changed his mind and decided he could possibly support John McCain, who is the Republic Party's presumptive presidential nominee.  For those of you who haven't followed the story, after McCain won the GOP nomination, Dobson said there was no way he would vote for or support McCain under any circumstances.  Well, that's not a direct quote, but I'm in a hurry today and I don't have the time to go back and find Dobson's exact words.
 
During the presidential campaign season, Dobson did endorse former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee--though that endorsement came very late in the process and probably had little to do with the surprising success of Huckabee's campaign.  At the time, many conservative Catholics and Evangelicals were wondering when and if Dobson was going to support Huckabee because he was the obvious choice for this important segment of the Party's base.  But better late than never and Dobson's endorsement was welcomed by Huckabee supporters at the time.  However, if those who thought Dobson was a bit tardy to jump on the Huckabee band wagon during the GOP primary race, Dobson's timing for his sudden turn around regarding McCain will confuse them even more.
 
Recently, Chicago Sun-Times columnist Bob Novak generated some needed publicity for himself by saying he received the word McCain was about to choose his running mate.  Of course, the press went wild and Novak got to appear on a number of political talk shows.  Novak, who likes to be called the "Prince of Darkness," for reasons I won't speculate on, was wrong and it's obvious McCain is not on the brink of announcing his choice for V-P.
 
But here's a question for Dobson:  If Huckabee were in the running for the V-P slot, why show your political hand so early?  There have been many questions regarding whether McCain needed to shore up the religious base of the Party and Huckabee would have been the obvious choice and, now that Dobson has made his premature announcement, why should McCain feel he has to do anything to appease conservative Catholics and Evangelicals?
 
The smart political move, if Dobson really felt Huckabee was worthy of the endorsement he gave the former Arkansas Governor a few months ago, would have been for Dobson to have said something like:  I might be able to support John McCain, but much will depend on who he chooses for Vice-President.  The McCain brain-trust would have seen this proclamation and realized perhaps the religious vote couldn't be taken for granted.  But, no!!!  Dobson jumps the gun, McCain and his people feel the religious base of the GOP is locked up and now they have the political permission of an Evangelical leader to choose a running mate other than Huckabee or any other strong social conservative for that matter.
 
Perhaps Dr. Dobson never really liked Huckabee in the first place because he couldn't have played his hand any worse for Huckabee's sake.  Or it's possible Dobson is a bit past his past prime and the finer aspects of politics have passed him by.
 
I know Huckabee was a long shot to be McCain's Vice-Presidential choice, but Dobson's move has virtually taken Huckabee off the list, unless McCain really likes the former Baptist Minister's sharp wit and political acumen--which left him a hair short of pulling off perhaps the biggest political upset in history.  Just a few more votes in South Carolina for Huckabee and McCain might be still pulling his own bags through our nation's airports.  Isn't the world of politics strange?
 
Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact Dan@rffm.org   

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

July 20, 2008

Obama Considering Romney As V-P Choice: No, McCain Considering Romney As V-P Choice: The Former A Better Fit by Gregg Jackson and John Haskins

BUYER BEWARE!  What You Would Get In a Vice-President Romney

(Hint: A demagogue who has already changed history)

GUEST COLUMN BY GREGG JACKSON + JOHN HASKINS

When Ann Coulter endorsed Mitt Romney she called the former Massachusetts governor "manifestly our best candidate" -- though the paper for which she is "chief legal correspondent," Human Events, ranked Romney the #8 RINO (Republican In Name Only) in the nation in 2005.

GOP establishment pom pom girl Laura Ingraham and water boy Sean Hannity evangelize Romney on their radio shows as the second coming of Ronald Reagan.

Curiouser and curiouser!

Romney the wallflower bats his eyelashes and coyly pretends not to notice the increasing speculation of a McCain-Romney ticket--even as he criss-crosses the country campaigning and fundraising for McCain--the same John McCain who Romney said during the primaries was "almost indistinguishable" from Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

But perhaps Romney intended that as a compliment, since Romney was a virtual GOP clone of Barack Obama, until he repackaged himself to seduce conservatives.

As a Boston talk radio host and writer-researcher (respectively), who both initially supported Romney (author Gregg Jackson lived out of state in 2002 and co-author John Haskins voted for him in 2002), we have followed Romney closely and know the truth about his record as very few people in America do. The truth is that many of the leading "conservative" lawyers, radio pundits and pro-family leaders whom we trusted for years have ruthlessly distorted and suppressed the truth about Romney's hideous record as governor -- even after all his "conversions."

It took one hundred million dollars of Romney's personal fortune to waterboard Americans with Orwellian propaganda from "conservative" talk radio, Fox News and "pro-family" lawyers and religious mercenaries.  Their consensus is they've rewritten enough history enough to fool enough of the people enough of the time.

Many pundits and political prognosticators are now calling Romney the odds-on favorite to be chosen as McCain's running mate--making it more urgent than ever conservatives--the field slaves of the Republican Party--know the true record of this man.

After reading the truth about this soulless demagogue, whom most of the GOP elites have airbrushed into a quasi-conservative, ask yourself if Mitt Romney is somebody, who as Dr. James Dobson of "Focus on the Family" stated, "is a man pro-family voters could support?"

1. Romney illegally imposed homosexual marriage as he had secretly promised "Log Cabin Republicans" a homosexual activist group he would, given the pretext of a legally meaningless court opinion. He publicly admitted that the four outlaw judges who belched forth the Goodridge opinion (urging the legislature to make sodomy-based "marriage" legal) had violated the state Constitution and their oaths of office.  But bizarrely, he flatly contradicted the state constitution he had sworn to uphold by pretending he was bound by this opinion. He also opposed a citizen-led effort to remove the four judges!

He then authorized illegal changes to, and issuance of, still legally null and void marriage licenses to homosexuals in violation of the marriage laws which the state constitution explicitly says only the legislature can change (the same court has admitted this).  But Romney and his hired "conservatives" falsely claimed that "everybody (knew) that the (judges) legalized same-sex 'marriage'."

2. AFTER his stage-managed "pro-life conversion" Romney's signature healthcare plan established abortion, with a taxpayer-subsidized $50 co-pay, as a "healthcare benefit." He also created a permanent, official government role for an unelected Planned Parenthood representative on his healthcare board -- but no pro-life appointee. (Again, AFTER HIS PURPORTED "PRO-LIFE CONVERSION").

3. Romney increased government funding for anti-family, anti-morality homosexual propaganda, starting in kindergarten, and refused to defend school children and parents' rights against this indoctrination. When running for the Senate in 1994, Romney promised the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans that as Senator he would be more pro-gay than Ted Kennedy stating in a letter to them, "As we seek to establish full equality for America's gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent."

4. Romney opposes a ban on homosexual boy scoutmasters and supports sexual orientation non-discrimination laws that would force private businesses and religious institutions to, for example, hire cross-dressers and transvestites or face criminal fines and punishment.

5. Romney's former staff member and others have revealed that in 2002, in return for the homosexual "Log Cabin Republicans" endorsement, Romney secretly promised to let judges exceed their legal power and unconstitutionally impose homosexual "marriage." 

6. Romney cited a non-existent state law to force Catholic Charities, the state's largest adoption and foster care agency, to provide children to homosexuals even when normal mother-father families were lined up to give them a home. Even former governor liberal Democrat Mike Dukakis pointed out that this "law" Romney was using was no "law," but merely an executive regulation that a governor can cancel with a stroke of his pen.

7. Romney's GOP mercenaries pass him off as a "fiscal conservative." Yet his "signature" achievement as governor, his government-run "universal" healthcare plan that was endorsed by Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and Planned Parenthood, has been a total economic failure according to the Wall St. Journal, Boston Globe, and Cato Institute.

8. Romney increased taxes and fees by over $800 million which devastated the Massachusetts economy. He also opposed the Bush Tax Cuts earning him praise from uber-liberal Barney Frank.

9. Romney lies without apparent shame, and has boasted falsely of "seeing his father march with MLK," being a "life-long hunter," having earned the "NRA's endorsement," always "being for life," etc.... 

10. Romney supported McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform" which shamelessly outlaws political speech -- an unalienable right guaranteed under our state and federal constitutions and for which countless of our young soldiers and sailors have died.

11. Romney backed the McCain-Kennedy "comprehensive immigration reform" (i.e. amnesty), and parts of the McCain-Lieberman "carbon cap and trade" bill.

Here's the bottom line: The ruthlessly ambitious and greedy GOP elites have been claiming that Mitt Romney is a fiscal and social conservative who would aid McCain in shoring up grassroots conservative support among Evangelicals and "pocket book conservatives." But McCain would be selecting a soulless and ruthless snake oil salesman, a Republican Barack Obama -- to the left of even McCain himself.  After all, Romney, as the Founding Father of Sodomy-Based "Marriage" and $50 dollar taxpayer-funded abortions alone, has accomplished what no Democrat has been able to, much less John McCain.

The charade required to successfully portray Romney as a conservative who bravely resisted homosexual "marriage," who opposed the giving of parent-less children to homosexuals and opposed his own $50 abortions involved a massive media campaign of bare-faced lying about the law, the powers conferred upon judges and the legal obligations of the governor himself under the brutally clear Massachusetts Constitution. It required perpetual and overwhelming propaganda assistance from the fervently pro-homosexuality and anti-family news mafia and commentariat (can you even tell the difference anymore?).

That the self-styled "conservative" elites took the lead in this Bolshevik-style subversion of a state constitution and in enabling government funding of industrial scale abortion is a frightening indication of why America is slipping into tyranny. Romney's bare-faced lies about the law, his criminal subversion of the oldest functioning constitution in the world -- and California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's (similarly illegal) copy-catting -- mark the unofficial end of any semblance of the rule of law in America on the issues that define any society.

As every senior homosexual activist and Democrat strategist understands, the consequences will be sweeping: the end of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association and parents' rights, as already evident in Canada and much of Europe. 

As Justice Antonin Scalia warned of the Lawrence v. Texas opinion in which a United States Supreme Court majority pretended to have the constitutional authority and power to "strike down" the anti-sodomy laws of states, "this could be the one that swallows the rule of law."

It is still swallowing.  Lawrence invited Goodridge. Goodridge invited the anti-constitutional and legally void California opinion that Schwarzenegger has used as a justification for trashing the constitution he swore to defend and uphold. And long before the swallowing is done, it will be too late to reverse it.

"Citizens, please return to your shopping. All is under control."

This is what we call "conservatism" today.

Caveat Emptor. Voter Beware!

Gregg Jackson is the author of "Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies: Issue by Issue Responses to the Most Common Claims of the Left from A to Z" and talk radio show host on WRKO in Boston.

Co-author John Haskins, proprietor of UndergroundJournal.net, has written on constitutionalism, parents' rights and international affairs in the American Spectator, World, Insight and WorldNetDaily. A former editor, he interviewed Lech Walesa on the tenth anniversary of the fall of communism in Europe and reported from refugee camps during the Balkan War.

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

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

The opinions of guest columnists may not necessarily reflect RFFM.org's views.

 

July 19, 2008

Barack Obama: Dems choose B.O. over Hillary: But will choice leave Party holding its nose in November?

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director 
 
Barack Obama (B.O.) without a teleprompter makes Elmer Fudd sound like the late Winston Churchill.  His wife was never proud of America before the year 2008.  If his former Pastor donned a sheet, he could give a good impression of the Grand Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan.  He hangs out with people who attempted to blow up the Pentagon.  One of his favorite orators is the "Reverend" Louis Farrakhan.  He thinks there are 57 states in America.  He believes people who take faith seriously and exercise their Second Amendment rights are "bitter."  Once upon a time, he refused to wear a flag pin on his lapel.  In the past, he balked at putting his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance or was it the National Anthem?  Heck, what's the difference to him.  He believes terrorist nations, including Iran, are minor problems that can be brushed away with a bit of his inescapable charm.  In fact, he believes direct negotiations with the leaders of terrorist nations is just fine.  He wants to make the United States energy independent, but he won't advocate offshore drilling, tapping into shale resource oil reserves, he doesn't want to drill in ANWR and he's against nuclear energy development.  And to put frosting on a very foul tasting cake, B.O. wants to tax everything, including our memory.  (Yes, this is an old joke, but it seems to work every time.)  Finally, he barely huffed and puffed across the finish line in his race against Hillary Clinton to be the presumptive Democratic Party's presidential nominee.
 
On the plus side, he has the dominant media in his pocket--which some might see as a blessing and others might compare to using a rattle snake as a belt for some loose pants.  If you smell something, it won't be B.O. himself because I'm sure the cologne he uses is more expensive than all the clothes in my wife's wardrobe and mine combined.  But there might be a foul air emanating from DNC Headquarters these days because, as B.O.'s negatives go up, that Democratic dream of again inhabiting the White House is flying away--like a smelly vulture, after gorging itself on a meal of Democratic hopes.
 
Therefore, B.O. may be the operative word this campaign season for the Dems.  But it may be a fragrance they won't like.
 
Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact Dan@rffm.org   
 
Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed. 

July 18, 2008

FOOD, WATER AND ENERGY = CONTROL OF AMERICANS

by Joyce Morrison *

Henry Kissinger was reported to have said, “Control the food and you control the people.” Controlling people is as simple as controlling food, water and energy through a variety of controls.

“No Farmers No Food,” the bumper sticker distributed by The Adopt a Farm Family ministry, is a message of warning. The Adopt ministry was started by Mary Myers, wife of Peter Myers, former Deputy Secretary of Agriculture who served in the Reagan Administration. She confided to me that God had instructed her to “watch over the food.” At that time there appeared to be no reason for concern. Now we see a new pattern unfolding. Could we be watching the beginning of Revelations 6:6?

"Green is the new red, white and blue,” was a recent quote made by a university environmental group. The extreme environmental movement has been compared to a watermelon.” Green on the outside but red on the inside.” Daily we are facing energy and possibly a food crisis because of the extreme environmental control that has swept our nation.

The goal of farmers in the U.S. is to provide the safest, cheapest food in the world…but that privilege is being taken from them one step at a time. We see our rural areas coming under many regulations. Farming acres are turned into open space, heritage areas, wetlands and programs that take crop land out of production.

F. William Engdahl’s latest book, Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation, “focuses on how a small American elite group seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: our daily bread.” Farmers are not geneticists. They plant the seeds they purchase in good faith, but they do not know the full genetic make-up of the seeds they plant.

Not only do grain farmers face problems, but livestock producers are facing a livestock tracking system that would reflect total control of our meat supply. If we permit the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) to be implemented, small producers will be eliminated. It will be virtually impossible for them to meet the requirements.

The official USDA documents can be found on www.farmandranchalliance.org website. NAIS begins with the registration of your premise - which is where your livestock are held. Livestock animals include cattle (beef and dairy), hogs, sheep and goats, chickens and other poultry, horses, bison, deer and elk, alpacas and llamas, and others.

In a three year period the total NAIS computer movement  numbers in the USA will more than eclipse the number of all people living on the entire planet earth,” according to a report by Darol Dickenson, The enforcement for not reporting within a 24 hour period could be a financial disaster to livestock owners.

The system is promoted by commercial interests such as the Digital Angel/Veri-chip corporation who have a patented implantable microchip for tracking RFID tags and GPS identification. They are already using chips in some hospitals and plans are underway by these same companies to chip the public at large. Could this be so people can “buy and sell” as stated in Revelations 13:16?

While USDA says this is a “voluntary” program, 4-H and FFA members in Colorado are forced to have a Premise Identification in order to enter their projects at the fairs. Illinois had mandated this same regulation but due to an outcry of the people, they lifted their mandate for 2008.

Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals, maker of VYTORIN (which is now under scrutiny) is listed as a member of the National Institute of Animal Agriculture (NIAA), the driving force behind NAIS. Control and greed appear to be the purpose of this program – not food safety. The CEO of Digital Angel, said, "We continue to support the livestock industry groups and USDA as they implement NAIS for livestock producers on a voluntary basis.”

WATER:

Control the water - control the people. If you have a well on your property, one of the goals of water control is to meter your well. The United Nations considers water to be a “global commons” to be commonly shared with all people.

The Clean Water Restoration Act (HR2421) is very frightening legislation on the federal level. This bill removes the word “navigable” from the Clean Water Act and places every ditch, pond or wet spot – virtually your back yard - under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Corps of Engineers. You will not be permitted to make any changes on your property without approval.

Germany, France and other countries own municipal water works in many locations in the United States. What would happen if one day could our “water was shut off?” Water needed for irrigation was deprived to farmers in the Klamath Basin in Oregon a few years ago causing devastation.

Farmers continue to stand for the belief to provide cheap, safe food for people around the world. They need the consumer’s help to take action when they see unwarranted changes in our food, water and land regulations. The rising cost of food is not because of subsidized farmers. At the current grain prices, farmers do not receive subsidies. In the past, there was speculation of a price control on grains with the purpose of the subsidy being for the benefit of the consumer.

We are definitely living in troubling times as we see our economy being disrupted with foreclosures on homes, soaring energy and food prices and unrest in the Mid-East. There are solutions to our problems such as drilling in ANWR, permitting new refineries and power plants to be built. There are many things we could do to eliminate our dilemma, but the environmentalists appear to be holding our legislators by the pocket.

The truth will never be found at happy hour discussing what was in the newspaper or on CNN. Until the people at large become informed with the truth - and take action, we will find our food, water and energy being used to control the masses.

* Joyce Morrison is a community organizer, activist and expert on property rights.  She operates a farm in southern Illinois.

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

July 15, 2008

Illinois Republicans Began Losing Their Moral Base Nearly A Decade Ago Which Led To The Party's Problems Today--At The National Level As Well

Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director
 
In 1994, Republicans steam-rolled their way into national Congressional power behind the ideals of moral certainty, fiscal responsibility and a promise to change the way things were done in Washington, D.C.  However, it didn't take long for the trappings of political power to ensnare many of those who were swept into office by the 1994 Republican Revolution and, by the year 2000, it was hard to tell a Republican from a Democrat.
 
Using the state of Illinois as an example, conservative members of the GOP probably reached their zenith of influence right around the time the national Party was becoming accustomed to the trappings of power.  There was plenty of excitement after the election of individuals like U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald in 1998.  At least in Illinois, the moral wing of the Party still had momentum, but, unfortunately, that didn't last for long.
 
Perhaps the downfall of the Illinois GOP began after the primary run of State Sen. Patrick O'Malley in 2002, a Republican who came with impeccable credentials, as far as his devotion to the issues which energized the pro-family political base of the GOP.  But O'Malley was in an uphill battle in his fight against combine member Attorney General Jim Ryan in the Republican Party's gubernatorial primary.  Yet besides the fact O'Malley was challenging a corrupt Republican machine, the state Senator, who represented an important region of the southwestern suburbs of Chicago, pulled 30% of the primary vote and things still looked positive for social conservatives, even though Ryan eventually defeated O'Malley, but went on to lose in the general election.
 
Unfortunately, out of O'Malley's campaign staff came the seeds of political destruction for the pro-family movement in Illinois.  A number of O'Malley's key staff members, including political operative Dan Proft and Blue Island Mayor Don Peloquin, decided to use O'Malley's success to bolster and give credibility to their efforts to bring gambling expansion to Chicago's southern suburbs.  Indeed, organizations which have led the battle against the evils of gambling, including ILCAAAP (Illinois Church Action on Alcohol and Addiction Problems) and SSCAGE (South Suburban Citizens Against Gambling Expansion) have spent the better part of a decade holding off Proft, Peloquin and their well-funded consortium which is still pressing to achieve its goals today to expand gambling into the southern suburbs of Chicago.  Though, at the time, these actions may not have seemed threatening to the pro-family movement, in hindsight, it was the beginning of the end for moral cohesion within the Illinois GOP. 
 
The cracks in the pro-family movement have been exploited from within the Party itself and it has occurred with an audacity that has deeply crippled the social conservative movement in the GOP which had so much momentum just a few short years ago.
 
Ironically, Dan Proft, who has not only supported gambling expansion, has become a significant player in the Illinois Republican Party.  Besides his support for gambling, Proft has played a major role in the elections of noted pro-aborts, one of whom, State Representative Elizabeth Coulson (R-Glenview), is a primary leader in the pro-abortion rights legislative voting bloc.  At the same time, Proft is playing both sides of the coin with his participation in the campaigns of pro-life candidates and pro-life initiatives.  It has been said a house divided against itself cannot stand.  Yet Proft wrote an article posted on July 15, 2008 titled, "Why Republicans in Illinois Lose, Reason No. 64,112" in which he said, "Reason Number 64,112 as to why Republicans in Illinois lose: opposition to their own party platform." [http://ilgopnet.com/node/963 ]  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!  Is it any wonder the Republican Party has been torn asunder by such leadership and hypocrisy.
 
Now it is completely within the realm of possibility Proft has had an epiphany and suddenly realizes the tragedy gambling rains down on our society and individuals who are trapped within the grasp of its seductive addiction.  But just a few short years ago, as the head of the now defunct Illinois Leader (IL), a conservative Internet news source, Proft participated in a back and forth literary exchange with IL editor Fran Eaton, where Proft supported the pros of gambling and Eaton's assignment was to provide counterpoint.  This was not a journalistic exercise meant for the entertainment of IL readers.  Proft believed in gambling and his argument in the Illinois Leader would have been quite eloquent, if not for the fact thousands of individuals who are addicted to gambling commit suicide each year.  Of course, Eaton won the moral argument and was consistent voicing the anti-gambling opinion which she has steadfastly held for many years.
 
Republicans, who were once the champions of doing what's right, started down a road of political expedience and the accumulation of wealth.  Since unity against gambling had been broken by political operatives in the GOP, other issues--which were important to social conservatives--soon fell prey to what many call political opportunism.
 
Now it would be unfair and inappropriate to blame one or two individuals for the demise of an entire Party.  With the former Governor in federal prison, obviously, there was something wrong in the GOP for many years.
 
The only thing some Republicans think they need to do to win elections is claim they are pro-life and for the protection of traditional marriage.  But many of us have found that, often, these words are simply hollow platitudes, meant to appease an important voting bloc within the Party.  If you wonder if this synopsis of the dedication many Republicans supposedly had to pro-family issues is accurate, all you need do is look back at what happened after the 1994 national elections and the 2002 GOP gubernatorial primary in Illinois.  In 1994, the Illinois GOP held a majority in both Houses of the state's General Assembly, held a number of statewide offices and held the governorship itself.  Yet, amazingly, legislation designed to fight abortion was practically non-existent in the years following.  In one case, imprisoned former Governor George Ryan vetoed an important pro-life bill and essentially said, anyone who believed the promises he made during the campaign season was a fool.
 
Today, I believe that sentiment is held by far more elected Republican officials than I would like to admit.  In fact, the only significant piece of pro-life legislation passed in Illinois in many years was the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act" signed into law by a Democratic Governor, Rod Blagojevich, in 2005.
 
In a very interesting column titled, "State House Republicans fail in effort to help Blagojevich massively expand gambling"
[http://www.championnews.net/article.php?sid=1078] author Doug Ibendahl points to the fact it is the Republicans who are seeking gambling expansion in Illinois in league with the Democratic Governor.  Quoting from his story, Ibendahl writes, "Sadly it was a block of House Democrats led by House Speaker Mike Madigan who were acting the way Republicans are supposed to in this case."
 
We can do nothing but expect this trend to continue.  Indeed, many Republican candidates for legislative seats downstate are now being defeated by Democrats who are pro-life, pro-gun, pro-family and, most important, they mean it.  They talk the talk and walk the walk.  Certainly, there are good Republicans who hold office in Illinois, but they are far too few and, sadly, their numbers are dwindling.
 
The Party of Abraham Lincoln has lost its way.  Perhaps one day the Democratic Party will be the Party of family values in Illinois.  It's not something that's hard to imagine.  And, when that day comes about, the Republicans will only have themselves to blame.
 
Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact Dan@rffm.org    

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

July 14, 2008

Was Jesse Jackson Flap With Barack Obama A Set Up? Maybe the Knife Had No Blade?

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director 
 
Recently, the Rev. Jesse Jackson shocked the political world when he launched a "sharp" tirade against Democratic presumptive presidential nominee, Barack Obama.  Jackson was caught on a live mike before an interview with FOX and Friends (FOX News Channel) regarding the subject of health care, essentially saying that he wanted to remove Obama's reproductive anatomy with a cutting utensil.  Jackson drove home his point, for lack of a better phrase, by pantomiming a cutting motion when he talked about the surgical procedure he would like to perform on the junior Senator from Illinois.
 
The story hit the airwaves like a bombshell.  Besides a "Reverend" -- a supposed man of God -- saying things that were best suited for a Stephen King novel or better yet Lorena Bobbitt, this fact did not elicit outrage.  What created the most furor was a black leader was criticizing the man who was to head his own Party's ticket, pardon the pun, but Jackson was also launching a withering diatribe against Obama that would have made a member of the Ku Klux Klan proud.
 
But not so fast.  Are we expected to believe a man who is given more interviews than probably any other individual in the United States, and the world for that matter, was caught off guard in a television studio, owned by a news organization which the Left considers the domain of Satan himself?  Jackson should have known a rule that a novice would be aware of when it comes to the press.
 
A media source told RFFM.org, "Anytime there is a mike on, you have to assume it's live.  Practically most anchors assume it's off during breaks and taped stories.  But, every so often, you'll see where the audio person didn't turn it off, and something happens on the air.  Moral of the story is: always assume it's on, or being recorded.  Beware of a live microphone!"
 
Are we expected to believe Jackson was not aware of this basic rule?  After all, the man has been around, since the invention of television itself.  Well, I might be exaggerating that point a bit, but the good Reverend has been give interviews since the 1960's and the general public did not have mass access to television until 1948.  So, I didn't miss by much with my hyperbole.
 
Bill O'Reilly, the arch-enemy of liberals throughout the land, just happened to be the individual to break the story.  O'Reilly (The O'Reilly Factor--FOX News Channel) has the most watched primetime news program on cable television and Jackson's remarks made a perfect fit for the man who calls himself a bloviator and is proud of it.
 
Doesn't this sound like a gift from above to Republicans?  A high-profile African-American Democratic leader holds his Party's presumptive presidential nominee in deep disdain.  What a revelation, if it were true.  However, I think if you look just a little bit deeper under the surface of this story, things don't sound right.  Jesse Jackson is probably disliked by more white Americans than any individual in the country.  The Obama campaign is fully aware of this fact.  Why do you think we have not seen pictures of Obama with Jackson or other characters, like Al Sharpton?  The Democratic Party wants nothing more than to give the appearance there is a philosophical divide between Obama and Jackson and perhaps the Reverend from Chicago was willing to fall on that knife he pretended to want to use on Obama in order to get that point across.  Again, sorry for the pun, they just keep comin' and I can't help it.
 
By the way, Jackson isn't exactly the favorite of many blacks either and a phony rift between the two men from Illinois would serve this voting bloc as well.
 
What's the bottom line we are expected to believe?  Barack Obama's reasonable positions on issues facing the African-American community has alienated one of the men the media has ran to for years, in order to get the opinions most blacks are supposed to hold on issues from unwed mothers to faith-based initiatives.  What a neat little package.  But I ain't buyin' it.  Jackson may be a liberal, big-government solution, tax-raising Democrat, but he's not stupid.  After all, Jackson ran for the presidency himself, once upon a time, and he knows the rules and realities of a presidential media feeding frenzy.
 
However, it seems like a majority of the public has bought into the phony rift between Jackson and Obama.  To put the frosting on the cake (with a dull knife), Jackson even held a press conference at which he apologized to Obama.  But the trap was sprung and the job was done.  For all I know, the purpose of Jackson's press conference was to make sure the people who missed his remarks the first time around got the message.
 
My Father may have came to the United States on a boat from Europe, but I didn't get off the bus yesterday.  And I don't mean the bus Obama used metaphorically to run over his white Grandmother either.
 
The rest of you will have to decide for yourself.
 
 
Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact Dan@rffm.org   

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

July 11, 2008

Obama's Call For Diplomacy With Iran "Appeasement" / Israeli Attack on Iran Justified

What Would America Do if Situation Were Reversed?  Kennedy Taught Us A Lesson by Daniel T. Zanoza
 
Barack Hussein Obama says we should use diplomacy with Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, regarding that nation's plans to develop a nuclear weapon.  This wouldn't be bad advice if that same Iranian leader had not promised to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.  And, with a nuclear weapon, that threat one day would become a reality.
 
It is obvious Mr. Obama has never heard of the saying, "Those who forget history are bound to repeat it."  And Obama has also forgotten what Democratic President John F. Kennedy did when the former Soviet Union installed strategic nuclear weapons just 90 miles off the Florida coast in Fidel Castro's Cuba.
 
Kennedy didn't call for bilateral meetings, including the Soviet Union and Cuba, for those who may have forgotten something called the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Even though Kennedy essentially caved to some Soviet demands regarding U.S. missiles with nuclear warheads being removed from Turkey, Kennedy still made it clear America would not stand for these weapons of mass destruction affixed primarily in our back yard.
 
It has been said the Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest the world has ever been to an all out thermal nuclear war.  Indeed, if things had not fallen exactly into place, the world would still be recovering from the cataclysm such a conflict would have wrought.  I believe Kennedy received far too much credit for his actions during those trying times.  In fact, the new President, and the weakness he showed, may have given the Soviets and Castro the courage to challenge the United States which, at the time, held a vast superiority in nuclear weapons and the systems needed to deliver them.  But facts are facts and Kennedy stood up to Nikita Khrushchev when he had to and the rest is history, twinged with a touch of revisionism.
 
In the same sense, if the Israelis do not attempt to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons-making capabilities, it would be criminal on that nation's part.  After what the world has seen from Islamic extremists during the last 30 years, Ehud Olmert, Israel's Prime Minister, should be brought up on criminal charges by the Israeli Knesset if he didn't act against the Iranians and soon.
 
Olmert cannot wait for the United States because the political situation in this country will prohibit President George Bush from taking the military action necessary to prevent Iran from coming up with the ultimate weapon.  An attack by the United States on Iran would virtually guarantee the presidential election in November for Obama, no matter if a high-level Iranian defector walked out of that nation with the blueprints of a workable nuclear bomb in hand.  Obama and the Democrats are the party of appeasement and, like Neville Chamberlain in 1939, who told the world we had achieved "peace in our time," Obama and the Democrats would be willing to sacrifice one year of world peace for the future destruction of Israel and the subsequent blackmail of the entire Middle East by Iran that would be sure to follow.
 
Some believe the upcoming Israeli attack on Iran, which was first reported on June 23rd by RFFM.org,   http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/06/rffmorg-excusive-high-ranking-member-of-israeli-military-says-attack-on-iran-imminent.html was nothing more than a bluff.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The entire world has known for years the Iranians could not be permitted to develop a nuclear weapon.  Even the spineless Democrats agreed to this fact five years ago when the menace was so far away it didn't have to be taken seriously.
 
But the time for threats of sanctions by the Europeans on Iran and other hollow threats has passed.  Israel can either deny the danger which lies literally hundreds of miles from its border or act while it can to defend their citizens and country from eventual destruction.
 
Olmert should disregard American politics when it comes to the defense of his country.  If an attack on Iran by Israeli forces leads to the election of Barack Hussein Obama, so be it.  But the one bastion of democracy in the Middle East--and the millions of people who live there--cannot be sacrificed to political expedience.  The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) most certainly has the plans, the weapons, and the motivation to eliminate a problem which, if not dealt with, will one day result in Israel's annihilation.  The time for Israel to act is now.
 
Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact Dan@rffm.org   

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

July 10, 2008

Chicago Tribune "Columnist" Violates the Tenets of Journalism

Read Dan Zanoza's Illinois Family Institute's Media Watch column titled "Journalism: Tribune Columnist Eric Zorn More Of an Activist Than Anything Else" at this link: http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=33961 
 
Zanoza questions whether Chicago Tribune "columnist" Eric Zorn is an activist rather than a journalist and explains why. 

July 07, 2008

Part 1: It's The White Guy's Fault...Revisited by Bill Zettler

Author's Note:  When I first wrote this series over a year ago, RFFM.org received some criticism about my viewpoint on the issue.  In fact, one reader demanded that his name be removed from the e-mail list.  Since then, of course, we have become aware, via various media and Internet sources, of a long series of “white guy” blaming from several leftist groups.  This non-exclusive list includes Rev. Jeremiah Wright from Sen. Barack Obama’s former church, Father Pfleger also preaching (or rather screeching) from Wright’s pulpit and former (or maybe still) Obama friend--Pentagon bomber Bill Ayers.  We really should not be surprised by such ideas because this is common conversation in university faculty lounges all over the country.  Who can forget former University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill’s characterization of 9/11 victims as “little Eichmanns” and the Duke faculty’s quick conviction of the innocent lacrosse players with terms such as “race, gender and white privilege”.  Then, there is Bill Ayers' comment in his April 2008 blog, “capitalism is built on exploitation, theft, conquest, war and racism.”  And Columbia University (Obama’s alma mater) asked Ahmadinejad to speak, but not extend an invitation to George Bush.  I am thankful to this group for going on such a rhetorical rampage that my material looks mild in comparison.  I have updated these columns to include some new info provided by these various sources.

 

From the Desk of Bill Zettler

 

I am sure you have heard this before in the media and from the campuses of American secular madrassas such as Columbia (where Obama received his undergraduate degree) and Harvard (where Obama received his law degree).  It doesn’t seem to matter what the issue is, “It’s the white guy's fault.”  This is an attempt by the media and certain educational institutions to make true what Russian historian Pokrovsky said, ”history is (liberal) politics projected onto the past”.

 

In this four-part series, I will attempt to correct the leftist media impression that all the World's evils are the result of historical actions taken by Europeans or their Western Hemisphere descendents.

 

It used to be just the fault of Europeans, the original Colonial/Imperialists, but over the last 25 years or so, the white guys on the block including Americans and, in fact, today Americans are, by far, the number one whipping boy of the far Left.  After all, we are descendents of those European colonialists, neocon Imperialists, capitalists and other evildoers.  Rev. Wright has in fact used the words “colonialism”, “imperialism” and “capitalism” in many sermons criticizing what he calls “white supremacy.”

 

The European white guys have moved to second place by adopting the liberal U.S. position which goes something like this:  “I am sorry I am free, live under the rule of law and the Bill of Rights, vote in democratic elections, have the most powerful economy and the highest income per capita among industrialized nations.  I apologize for all those things.  I wish I were more like you, unable to choose my political leaders by secret ballot, vilified, tortured and jailed by my government.  I really wish I could have the miserable life you have, then I would not feel nearly as guilty.  But I was wondering: could I still get Starbucks?”

 

Even Warren Buffet, one of the most successful capitalists in the world, sounded apologetic when he donated $30 billion to help others less fortunate.  To paraphrase Buffet's words:  I studied for years, worked hard 'round the clock for decades, risked everything I had and became wealthy because of it.  I apologize.  I am sorry it happened; I didn’t mean to do it.  It is a legacy of my colonial/imperialist past.  Here, take it all, it won’t happen again.

 

Of course, if it doesn’t happen again -- wealth creation that is -- millions, if not billions, will starve because only wealth creation can save the World.  Only wealth can create jobs; only wealth can be given away; only wealth becomes charity; and only wealth generates the taxes to provide for a fair and generous government.  Poverty yields nothing, but more poverty.  Mediocrity and dissension towards the mean yields only tyranny and helplessness.  See Cuba, North Korea and Zimbabwe as examples.

 

What Buffet should have said was:  I am thankful that I live in a country with a political system that has allowed me to accumulate this great wealth so I could use it to help others.  I am sure there are more intelligent and capable persons in Africa than me.  However, because of the corrupt political systems endemic to that continent, they are unable to create and generate the wealth needed to help their own people.  Therefore, I will try to help them with the wealth my country’s political system allowed me to generate.

 

The self-loathing and self-hatred of the Left is some sort of mental illness.  Success, wealth and their antecedents, freedom, liberty, capitalism, property rights and the rule of law, should be encouraged around the World -- not vilified as some sort of moral decadence.  The moral decadence exists in places like Cuba and North Korea and Zimbabwe, not in the U.S.  They have neither freedom, nor liberty, nor capitalism, nor property rights, nor the rule of law and their citizens suffer and live in poverty because of that -- not because of exploitation by Western nations.

 

The elitist Left have a superiority complex -- they claim they want to help the poor, but repeatedly tell them they are not capable of doing what the elitists themselves have done -- become successful in a capitalist political system.  In order to justify their own existence, liberal elitists have created need for themselves by disabling the limitless potential of those they are purporting to help.  But blaming the success of Western nations for the failures of others serves no purpose except to obscure the source of the problem.  The problem is over there, not over here.

 

All men are created equal, meaning we are not innately superior to those who live and suffer in ignorance and poverty, but our political system is superior.  Our political system allows and encourages success and that is why we are more successful.  That is a good thing for the World to learn, not a bad thing.

 

 

Copyright 2008 Bill Zettler / RFFM.org

 

The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of RFFM.org's management.

 

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

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

July 06, 2008

Jesse Jackson + Chicago Mayor Are Stymied By High Court's Ruling On D.C. Gun Ban: Afghanis Get It, Too Bad Anti-Gun Elitists Don’t

NRA To Target Chicago + Neighboring Suburban Hand Gun Bans, After Supreme Court Ruling
 
Commentary by Bill Zettler *

 

According to the Associated Press, June 27, 2008, "The number of civilians killed in fighting between insurgents and security forces in Afghanistan has soared by two-thirds in the first half of this year, to almost 700 people, a senior U.N. official said Sunday." 

 

We have all seen pictures on TV of Afghan citizens walking the streets with AK-47's draped over their shoulders.  And who can forget the Afghan weddings where hundreds of shots are fired in the air to celebrate the event.  Every Afghan male who can afford a gun has one and, more often than not, they are assault rifles like the AK-47.

 

To the average Afghani, the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding the right to bear arms in your own home for self-defense must seem like a no-brainer.  In fact, the Afghan people must be shaking their heads, trying to figure out why it is an issue at all.  Only a decadent society, on its way to oblivion, would deny its people the right to self-defense.

 

Which brings me to the breathless quote from the AP above.  Seven hundred deaths in a nation of 33 million people fighting a murderous clique like the Taliban is truly astounding--because the number of deaths are so low.  For example, there were more than 700 violent deaths (homicides) in Chicago, L.A. and New York combined in the first six months of 2008.  At the same time, Afghanistan's population is two to three times more than that of Chicago, L.A. and New York in total.  And, of course, all three cities have strict gun control laws.  That means U.S. citizens without the right to bear arms in defense of their families and property are more at risk of violent death than Afghan citizens in the middle of a war zone.  Gang-bangers, murderers and thieves constitute the American Taliban and their reign of terror continues in the inner-cities--aided and abetted by liberal gun control policies.

 

As for Chicago's Mayor Daley, he did not take kindly to the High Court’s decision which struck down one of the strongest hand gun bans in the U.S. in Washington, D.C.  Daley's response was, "Does this lead to everyone having a gun in our society?"  To answer your question, Mr. Mayor, no, not everyone.  Just those non-felon citizens who want to have one.  Let parents decide whether a gun in the home is more dangerous to their children than the guns in the hands of the criminals roaming the streets of Chicago.  I know it goes against your Democratic Party belief which asserts elitists, like you, know better than the citizen-electorate as to what is best for their families.  We have the Bill of Rights to counter the rule of the few and the elite.

 

As for Reverend Jesse Jackson, he is going to lead a protest against gun shops in Chicago.  This is certainly a safe option, since there are no gun shops in Chicago and little likelihood there will be any in the foreseeable future.  A more meaningless gesture would be hard to imagine.  Jackson is also going to lead a prayer vigil against a suburban Lake County business, DS Arms, to protest gun manufacturing.  This despite the fact that DS Arms' customers are mainly police and military personnel and there is no record of any of their guns ever being used in a crime.

 

Facts show Reverend Jackson’s constituents in Chicago's inner-city would be safer in Afghanistan than their own neighborhoods.  This despite the fact there are violent insurgents, including Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives, present in virtually every Afghani neighborhood, city or province.  Yet there are gun shops in virtually every Afghan market place.  I am surprised Jackson does not protest in front of the Afghan embassy in Washington, D.C. to complain about all the guns in Afghani civilian hands.  That would make as much sense as what he is planning to do in Chicago--in front of gun shops that do not exist.

 

All this is more evidence that Jesse Jackson has become a caricature of an out of touch liberal elite.  Only a complicit media could keep this man in the news.

 

The right to defend one's self and property is basic and so obvious the Constitution's Framers did not even address the issue in the U.S. Constitution.  Afghans understand this implicitly; too bad Daley and Jackson don’t.

 

* Bill Zettler recently was a guest on Champion News Talk Radio, discussing Illinois teacher salaries and pensions.  Champion News Radio has a one hour show which can be heard on AM560 WIND in Chicago and is be posted in podcast form on The Champion News website.
 
Here is the link to the archived interview with Zettler in its entirety:
 
Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact Dan@rffm.org   

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

July 05, 2008

Court Did Not Have Power To Strike Down California Prohibition On Same-Sex "Marriage" -- Like Romney, Schwarzenegger Shirked Obligation To Uphold The Law by Gregg Jackson

Same-Sex "Marriage": Illegal In All 50 States / Conservative Groups + Pundits Miss The Point Regarding Legality Of Court's Action
 

RFFM.org Guest Column by Gregg Jackson *

About a month ago, the California Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, issued a declaratory opinion that Proposition 22, which states that, "Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California," enshrined into statutory law by 61.4% of California voters in 2000 (over four million voters), was "unconstitutional" on the basis that "gender discrimination" violates the equal protection clause of the state constitution.

The LA Times reported:

"The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday in a broadly worded decision that would invalidate virtually any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation."

Sadly, many of the leading "conservative" and "Christian" pro-family organizations such as AFA (American Family Association), Liberty Council, ADF (Alliance Defense Fund), FRC (Family Research Council), ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice) and Focus on the Family have been in full surrender mode conceding this same liberal talking point that the court "legalized same-sex marriage in California" and that the only way to ensure preserving traditional male-female marriage is through a state constitutional amendment scheduled to be on the ballot in November.

The California Supreme Court issued a declaratory opinion that, in the view of the bare majority, banning same-sex couples from marrying was unconstitutional and that the language of the initiative statute limiting marriage to one man and one woman must be stricken from the statute. Unfortunately however, the court doesn't have the constitutional authority to re-write the marriage statute nor any other initiative statute for that matter. According to the California Constitution, only the people can revoke or amend an initiative statute such as Prop 22. Same-sex "marriage" remains, therefore, illegal.

The court said the plaintiffs were entitled to the issuance of a "writ of mandate" but issued no actual writ to state officials to perform the ministerial act of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Even if they had issued a "mandate," state officials are sworn to execute the law and not effectuate a court's opinion. Moreover, any court mandate or "order" would have been both unenforceable and invalid, since, according to a recent California Court of Appeals ruling from April of 2008, Sondermann Ring Partners v. Buenaventura, the court can declare an action of the legislature unconstitutional where such action exceeds the limits of the Constitution, but the courts have no means and no power to avoid non-action. In other words, the court is not constitutionally permitted to enforce its opinion.

Governor Schwarzenegger has fulfilled his promise to "uphold the court ruling" by authorizing changes to the marriage certificates, replacing "husband" and "wife" with "partner A" and "partner B" which is ironic considering that he vetoed a previous attempt by the legislature in 2005 to eliminate gender requirements for marriage which he argued required the assent of the electorate. He has also authorized Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks to solemnize and perform same-sex marriage ceremonies which began on June 15th.

But the main question is whether or not Governor Schwarzenegger possesses the constitutional authority to do so.

The governor, according to Article 5 Section 1 of the California Constitution is solely responsible for seeing that "the law is faithfully executed."

And since all law making powers solely reside with the sovereign people of the state of California and their elected representatives, the Governor is bound to only enforce the laws and statutes which have been enshrined into law via the people (in the case of an initiative statute or constitutional amendment) or their elected representatives, including Prop 22, which has not changed.

According to the California Constitution, only the voters possess the enumerated authority to amend or repeal the marriage statute limiting marriage to one man and one woman (Prop 22). As Judge Baxter wrote in his dissent:

Under article II, section 10, subdivision (c), that body cannot unilaterally repeal an initiative statute, such as Family Code section 308.5, unless the initiative measure itself so provides. Section 308.5 contains no such provision.

Nemo dat quod non habet, ("You cannot give what you do not have.") In other words, the California Supreme Court cannot give to the Legislature, what neither it, nor the legislature, has: the power to overturn the people's initiative legislation. No branch of government, even the branch that claims to be the final arbiter of a Constitution can gain legal authority which it does not possess. To claim then "the court legalized same-sex marriage" by "striking down" the people's initiative statute limiting marriage to one man and one woman has absolutely no constitutional basis.

Governor Schwarzenegger has violated his sworn oath to uphold the California Constitution to only enforce the current laws and statutes of the state of California by illegally authorizing changes [http://www.worldnetdaily.com:80/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=65755] to, and issuance of, marriage certificates to same-sex couples.

Like former Massachusetts Governor Romney before him, Governor Schwarzenegger has falsely asserted that the court's opinion, containing no valid or enforceable court order, "legalized same-sex marriage" and that it is his obligation to enforce the "court's decision." Romney illegally authorized [http://www.undergroundjournal.net/igroops/theunderground/adminpages/Letter-To-Romney-JAN-07] the Department of Public Health to change the marriage certificates from "husband" and "wife" to "partner A" and "partner B" and ordered Town Clerks and Justices of the Peace to perform and solemnize same-sex "marriages," or tender their resignation (which one did), without an accompanying statute approved by the legislature.

Schwarzenegger's tyrannical actions are straight out of the Romney playbook.

It is no surprise that the vast majority of the leading conservative "pro-family" organizations, lawyers and radio-pundits have been silent about Schwarzenegger's illegal actions since virtually every one of them from Focus on the Family to Ann Coulter to Rush Limbaugh totally suppressed the truth about Mitt Romney's virtually identical illegal actions.

Romney, not the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, was originally solely responsible for the illegal [http://www.robertpaine.blogspot.com/] issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2004. The claim that the "activist" Goodridge Court "legalized gay marriage" is a total lie. The court didn't even pretend its declaratory opinion on the one individual case before it, could in any way influence the current marriage statute:

"Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief." 

In fact, the court admitted that under the marriage statute, Chapter 207 of the Massachusetts General Laws, homosexual marriage is illegal:

"We conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."

In California, while the court has claimed that the designation of marriage as a "union between one man and one woman" must be stricken from the statute, it is crucial to reiterate that only the sovereign people of California have the constitutional authority to amend or revoke an initiative statute such as Prop 22.

Since courts lack the authority to enforce their own opinions and cannot make law, they can only be considered "activist" when the executive branch enforces their opinion as if it were the "new law." While a bare majority of four members of the court no doubt issued an illegal opinion and should be impeached for doing so, Governor Schwarzenegger alone authorized the issuance of the illegally altered marriage certificates. Executive tyranny, not "judicial activism," is what occurred in California (and Massachusetts).

The bottom line is this: Same-sex "marriage" is not legal anywhere in the United States of America from Massachusetts to California. Now if only somebody would explain this basic legal concept to our superstar "conservative" leaders, lawyers, and radio-pundits who incessantly swear that it is.

* Gregg Jackson
Co-Host "Pundit Review Radio"
WRKO Boston's Talk Station
www.WRKO.com

Author of "Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies: Issue By Issue Responses to the Most Common Claims of the Left from A to Z"
www.amazon.com/Conservative-Comebacks-Liberal-Lies-Responses/dp/0977227901/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-0819165-6065708?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178135052&sr=8-1

www.greggjackson.com

Facebook
www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=502797320

Townhall.com Columnist http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GreggJackson

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

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

July 03, 2008

War Between Social and Fiscal Conservatives: Lack of Compassion Does Hurt the Republican Party

Somehow GOP Needs Face Lift, But Cosmetic Surgery Might Not Be Enough
 
by Daniel T. Zanoza
 
After nearly 15 years of attempting to describe how the mainstream media has often negatively portrayed conservatives, I have found there are some basic truths which have prompted such coverage.  Certainly those who fall on the right of the political spectrum are not fairly represented or reported on by many journalists in the dominant press.  However, the dynamics of conservatism and the varied views which make up this broad political idiom has, at times, fostered the coverage it receives.
 
It must be acknowledged all conservatives do not think alike and are not driven by the same motivations.  In the past, I myself have been critical of  views espoused by some on the right.  For example, fiscal conservatives, seemingly, only care about issues related to the almighty dollar.  In fact, many fiscal conservatives hold liberal views on social matters, including public education and abortion.  Then, there is a category of conservatives who want people to do things their way.  Often, they are highly judgmental and lack reasonable tolerance.  I do not use the word tolerance here in its corrupted form.  Today tolerance connotes the blind acceptance of all types of behavior--no matter how anti-social or morally corrupted.  This group of conservatives I speak of simply cannot tolerate viewpoints which stray from their own and they do not demonstrate the willingness to look at opposing viewpoints.  These conservatives are not willing or able to put themselves in their brother's shoes.
 
The mainstream media has used the opinions espoused by these two groups to label all conservatives as mean-spirited and uncaring.  A third branch of conservatism includes individuals who acknowledge America was primarily founded on Judeo-Christian principles.  Included in this group's thinking are the concepts held within the Judeo-Christian ethic which embrace charity and compassion for one's fellow man.  They hold on to this philosophy because it is required by their faith and, though they do not agree with opinions contrary to their own, at the same time, they demonstrate love for their neighbor.
 
Sadly, during a decade and a half of pro-family advocacy regarding the dominant media, I have found there are many individuals who do not embrace the faith-driven edicts held by this third conservative faction.
 
A perfect example of what I call "conservatism without compassion" was illustrated to me during a recent discussion with a director of a conservative organization.  Purely by happenstance, this individual brought up an issue currently being debated in the federal courts regarding the fact different denominations of U.S. currency cannot be distinguished by the blind and those suffering from dyslexia.  The director of the conservative group suggested I write a column on the subject.  This individual somehow believed I would share the opinion that having access to readable currency for the blind or dyslexic would represent another form of false victimization.
 
Forgive the pun, but I have special insight concerning such matters.  For most of my life, I was legally blind with partial vision.  I could distinguish between different denominations of currency, by bringing the bills very close to my eyes.
 
However, earlier this year, I became what is called functionally blind.  This means I cannot pursue normal life functions without mechanical aids or the assistance of others.  For example, I would walk into a wall without the use of a cane, I could not read a utility bill or any other printed document(s), I would be totally lost if I were placed in an unfamiliar area, etc.  The abilities possessed by unsighted individuals vary.  Those in the military who have recently lost their vision--as casualties of war--would have a much greater problem negotiating their new world than someone who has been blind from birth and trained--at a young age--in the use of functional aids, like Braille.
 
For years, I had been operating on a false assumption.  I mistakenly believed those who were functionally blind identified currency on which physical cues existed.  During a recent rehabilitation session, to my amazement, I learned this was not the case.  The only way for the blind or dyslexic to distinguish one denomination of currency from another is by either arranging bills in sequence, folding bills in differing configurations or depending on the assistance of a friend or loved one or to trust a stranger to be honest.  But, of course, from the beginning, every blind or dyslexic person has to depend on the honesty of the original dispenser of said funds.  There is no way to get around this fact.  No matter how well a physically challenged human being has mastered the art of self-reliance, the bottom line is:  At one point in time or another, I must rely on the honesty of a complete stranger.
 
The more I thought about this issue, the more I understood my Constitutional rights are indeed being violated by the U.S. Government.  If not for the help of my loving wife, I literally would be unable to live a productive life at this point.
 
But the director of the conservative organization felt I was not entitled to such rights because they were not provided for within the U.S. Constitution.  This individual did not stop there, saying:  Buildings did not need to be accessible to those in wheelchairs, the same goes for street corners which, in the past, prevented wheelchair access and on and on.
 
To my amazement, the individual, who I was quickly losing respect for, asked, "What did people do 200 years ago who were blind or handicapped?"  I was also told, "You could use your credit card to make purchases."  I was stunned and, frankly, I felt personally attacked.  According to this person, because of conditions beyond my control, which have an impact on myself and others, a significant number of Americans do not and should not have the same access to essential goods and services for our livelihood as those without physical handicaps.  Remarkably, this prominent individual in the conservative community apparently does not believe in the Declaration of Independence which states, "...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
 
The draconian beliefs of this conservative leader reminded me of those advanced by Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, an organization responsible for millions of abortions in America since the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court's ruling titled Roe v. Wade, which legalized the practice.  Sanger's motto was, "More from the fit, less from the unfit."  It was a philosophy later advanced by leaders in Nazi Germany to "dispose" of undesirables, which included the handicapped, among others.
 
The director of the conservative group tried to legitimize the position taken against the court ruling involving access to readable currency for the blind and dyslexic.
 
This individual claimed such legal decisions only helped to create more victims in American society and the courts did not have the right to create such laws.  "Then you would support actions taken to level the playing field for the physically handicapped, if it were strictly done through legislation," I asked.  "Yes," said the conservative "leader"--in a totally unconvincing tone, "but there is no constitutional right to create these kinds of laws."
 
No wonder conservatives often take the brunt of criticism from the dominant media.  If this position were drawn out to its ultimate degree, Blacks would still be considered as three-fifths of a human being and American Indians would not be considered human beings at all.  Liberals say conservatives lack compassion and I would be standing in line with them to agree--if indeed all of us held the views of the person who prompted my writing of this column.
 
I speculate whether this individual would have a different opinion, if circumstances dictated he, she or a loved one had to live their life in a wheelchair or was surrounded by total darkness.  I found that the ideals held within the faith this person claimed to believe in were trumped by conservative political dogma.
 
Years ago, the deaf, blind or those without the ability to walk were institutionalized or, in some cultures, left to die--at an early age.  In my conversation with this individual, who often waxed eloquent about the rights of the unborn, I was hearing nothing about the rights of those who live.
 
If this were the only person who felt this way about such issues, it would be a sad anomaly within the social conservative movement.  Unfortunately, there are far too many others who share similar views and demonstrate the same lack of compassion and mean-spiritedness which the media accuses social conservatives of.
 
Thankfully, a vast majority of those who call themselves social conservatives are compassionate and giving individuals.  I do not contend that everyone who disagrees with me on such issues is a heartless human being.  There is room, or at least there should be room, for honest discussion among conservatives concerning most every issue that does not violate the tenets of the collective viewpoints of the Judeo-Christian faith we embrace.
 
I do not say these things because I am blind.  I have been legally blind all my life and I have never used what God has given me for a crutch or excuse.  I do not use my physical limitations to get special treatment either.  In fact, I stand firmly against affirmative action--especially concerning the use of quotas or set-asides.  To the contrary, most people with physical or emotional handicaps try their best to be unobtrusive on our society.  We wish to be productive American citizens, although it is sad to report out of the three per cent of all Americans who are either legally blind or functionally blind, 70% are unemployed.
 
I wrote this column because I believe my faith tells me I should treat others as I would like to be treated.
 
Perhaps some of us need to search our hearts to see if we really are truly compassionate conservatives.  And, if we demonstrate that we are, just maybe our message regarding other issues would be more readily accepted or, at the very least, understood by others, including the media.  What a wonderful political ideology that would be.
 
This column originally appeared December 6, 2006.
 
Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact Dan@rffm.org   

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

Fairness Doctrine -- IFI column exposes possible censorship

Read Dan Zanoza's Media Watch column on the Illinois Family Institute's web site  [www.illinoisfamily.org/], titled, "The Fairness Doctrine:  Censorship at its worst" 
 
Zanoza's IFI Media Watch essay [http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=33957] delves into the democracy-threatening legislation called the Fairness Doctrine.  Local and national radio hosts talk about a bill which would put conservative and Christian radio in jeopardy. 

June 30, 2008

Media Claims Obama Will Attract New Voters In November: You Bet He Will, But Obama Probably Won't Like Them

Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director