RFFM.ORG

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality Fundraiser Huge Success: Gay Protest Fizzles

RFFM.org Staff Writer

An estimated audience of over 100 pro-family leaders gathered in Arlington Heights on Saturday night, October 24th, in support of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) www.aftah.org.  The evening featured a speech by Peter LaBarbera, Founder and President of AFTAH, and a nationally recognized activist who has toiled on behalf of pro-family issues for more than two decades.

The keynote speaker was J. Matt Barber, AFTAH Board Member: Director of Cultural Affairs, Liberty Counsel; Associate Dean, Liberty University School of Law; and author of "The Right Hook: From the Ring to the Culture War."

Paul B. Madore, Founder and Director, Maine Grassroots Coalition; Jim Finnegan, President, Choose Life Illinois; and Pete Lines who overcame the homosexual lifestyle also addressed those gathered at the Christian Liberty Academy.

LaBarbera told RFFM.org the night was a huge success and he expressed his appreciation to those gathered and to Pastor Calvin Lindstrom, Church of Christian Liberty and Christian Liberty Academy who delivered the invocation.

Jack Roeser, a well-known pro-family philanthropist who attended the banquet, wowed those in attendance when he offered a $10,000 matching grant for AFTAH.

An expected protest by radical homosexual activists took place outside Christian Liberty Academy which included approximately fifteen demonstrators.  The protest was in response to a national call to action from homosexual leaders. 

"I expected to be meet by a huge phalanx of pro-homosexual demonstrators," said Dan Zanoza, RFFM.org's Executive Director and an attendee of the AFTAH fundraiser.  "The pro-homosexual group blocked our access to the crosswalk leading to the banquet hall.  As a blind individual, I was struck by the insensitivity of a group which calls for tolerance and recognition of what they claim are special rights homosexuals should receive under the U.S. Constitution."

"Thankfully, two members of the Arlington Heights Police Department cleared a path for me and those I came with and that was deeply appreciated on my part," continued Zanoza.  "As I attempted to enter the crosswalk leading to the Academy itself, the pro-homosexual group proceeded to loudly chant their message which greatly increased the danger for myself and others, including the elderly, who depend not only on sight and sound to cross a street.  The insensitivity demonstrated by the group was ironic."

David Smith, Executive Director of the Illinois Family Institute accepted an award on behalf of Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman of the American Family Association (AFA).   

Though the AFTAH banquet was not a political event, two candidates seeking statewide office were present.  Dan Proft, who is running for Governor in the GOP primary and Andy Martin, who is seeking the Republican Party nomination in the U.S. Senate race, joined pro-family supporters at the AFTAH fundraiser.

"I was very impressed with the gathering of people who are concerned about this issue, especially with the words of Mr. Lines, an individual who found his way out of the homosexual lifestyle with God's help," said Arlene Sawicki of South Barrington, a longtime pro-life/pro-family activist.  "Contrary to the sentiments of radical homosexual activists, the entire evening approached the issue of homosexuality and its impact on our culture in a loving, Christlike manner."

A Question and Answer session with Matt Barber and Pete Lines topped off the proceedings.

"I learned a great deal about the negative impact the homosexual lifestyle has upon our culture and individuals who find themselves trapped in this lifestyle," said one of those gathered.  "It is a sad story, but Mr. Lines is proof that there is hope for all who are living their lives contrary to Biblical teachings.  However, it is also a message of hope for those with other addictions because I believe, as one of the speakers noted tonight, homosexuality is a form of sexual addiction that one can overcome."

For information regarding contributions to AFTAH go to:  www.americansfortruth.com/donate/.

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.

IL Secy. of State Allows Symbol of Fictional Holiday Festivus to Join Nativity Scene & Menorah in State Capitol by Dan Gura

RFFM.org NEWS

 

Springfield, IL  --  Earlier this week, an 18 year old man from Springfield was allowed to put up a symbol at the State Capitol Building Rotunda in recognition of a fictional holiday.  Michael Tennenhouse applied for and received a permit from the office of Jesse White, Illinois' Secretary of State.  White's office is responsible for issuing permits to groups who desire to participate in a public forum inside Illinois' state Capitol building.

 

Tennenhouse claims he sought permission from White's office to honor something called "Festivus" which was a story line from an episode of the Jerry Seinfeld show.  One of the Seinfeld characters came up with the idea of Festivus as a celebration of nothing, supposedly in protest of the commercialization of Christmas.  Tennenhouse also said he put up the pole which sits in a Christmas tree stand in response to the controversy over a Nativity scene, Menorah and a sign that was put up by a group of atheists in the Capitol Rotunda earlier this month.

 

"It's the theater of the absurd," said Daniel Zanoza, Chairman of the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee.  "I'm very disappointed with the Secretary of State's office.  They are supposed to be the 'gate keepers' regarding control of the Rotunda Building space.  According to this latest farce, the message sent from Jesse White is that anything goes.  I suppose since our government is fraught with corruption, I could put a mop and a bucket in the Capitol Building and receive a permit because it would symbolize that our state government needs a good cleaning."

 

The Springfield Nativity Scene Committee collected private donations to purchase a three-piece set which depicted the birth of Jesus Christ to celebrate the state and federal holiday of Christmas.  Shortly afterward, a sign disparaging all religions joined the manger scene in the center of the state Capitol Rotunda.  Finally, a Menorah was erected by a Jewish group to commemorate Hanukkah.  All the displays are near what White's office calls a "holiday" tree at the center of the Rotunda space.

 

"It's nihilism," said Zanoza.  "This demonstrates that there are those who want to tear down any symbolism or tradition which celebrates the Judeo-Christian heritage which most people in America adhere to.  White's office does not seem to understand that not all speech is protected.  You can't yell 'fire!' in a crowded theater and you can't scream obscenities into an open window of a house of worship.  At least the sign from the atheists group presents some sort of a message.  The Festivus symbol should be put in a corner where White's office originally placed the Nativity scene.  It took me six months to get a permit from the Secretary of State, but it seems the Secretary of State's office is cranking permits out like there's no tomorrow and it's one more sad statement about Illinois.  Jesse White needs to get a back bone because it's obvious he has lost his.  So, I guess the message is 'come one, come all,' no matter how ridiculous your message is.  It's turning into a circus and White wants to be the ring master.  Very sad."

 

The sign from the atheist group was stolen early last week, but the group replaced it on Monday and added a religious warning saying "Thou shalt not steal."

 

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 Committee Chairman guest of Bob Dutko 103.5 FM Detroit at 11:30 AM Central time today

 

Today, Dan Zanoza, Chairman of the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee, will be interviewed by Bob Dutko of WMUZ FM Radio in Detroit, Michigan at 11:30 A.M. Central time. 

 

Zanoza will discuss the Springfield, Illinois Nativity scene which now stands in that state's Capitol building Rotunda.  Zanoza will also discuss the theft of an atheist sign which was on exhibit near the manger scene.  On Tuesday morning, the Secretary of State's office announced the theft of the sign put up by a group which calls itself the Freedom From Religion Foundation which is headquartered in Madison, Wisconsin.

 

Those in the Detroit area can listen to the program live on 103.5 FM.  The interview can also be streamed through the Internet by going to http://www.wmuz.com/

 

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

Springfield Nativity Scene Committee Chairman Says Theft of Atheist Signage from State Capitol Unfortunate

SPRINGFIELD, IL -- According to a spokesman for Jesse White, the Illinois Secretary of State, a sign posted by the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), was stolen from the state Capitol building Rotunda sometime between 9:45 P.M. Monday and 7 A.M. Tuesday.  The sign--which disparaged those who believe in religion or have personal faith--was placed in the Illinois Capitol building in reaction to a Nativity scene that was sponsored by the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee (SNSC) and donations from the public.

 

"It is truly unfortunate that someone decided to express their displeasure with the disturbing sign by stealing it," said Daniel Zanoza, Chairman of the SNSC.  "Of course, our entire committee would encourage the return of the sign to its rightful owners.  Judeo-Christian teachings tell us 'Thou shalt not steal' through the Ten Commandments.  I know SNSC members are in unison in their condemnation of this act."

 

Recently, some pro-family groups have been critical of the Secretary of State's office for placing the FFRF sign in close proximity to the Nativity scene and the so-called "holiday" tree which stand at the center of the Rotunda.

 

Dave Smith, Executive Director of the Illinois Family Institute, says he knows of at least 400 e-mails or calls that have come into the Secretary of State's office with complaints about the atheist sign's location in reaction to a story Smith wrote on the subject last Monday.  [IFI E-Alert: Atheists Attack Religious Displays in Springfield http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=34177]

 

"Yes, I do think the atheist sign and its message should have been separated from the positive religious images," said Zanoza.  "I also take umbrage at the suggestion made by this atheist group that Christians in our group or individually had something to do with the stealing of the sign.  It's a slanderous comment and I believe an apology should be forthcoming.  I also find it amazing that this group is now going to use words from Scripture to discourage further theft in the future.  Where I come from it's called hypocrisy, but they may call it something else in Madison, Wisconsin from where this group hails."

 

A spokesman for the FFRF reportedly said the words "Thou shalt not steal" will be included on a replacement sign.

 

The Nativity scene went on display December 2nd and will stand in the Capitol Building Rotunda through December 28th.

 

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

Choir Performing at Site of Springfield Nativity Scene Wows Overflow Crowd at Capitol, Despite Presence of Offensive Atheist Signage

RFFM.org News by Dan Gura

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS -- Nearly 20 members of a choir--which calls itself the Joyful Senior Singers & Ringers--performed in the Illinois state Capitol Building on December 9th.  Hailing from the Tabernacle Baptist Church in Decatur, the unique group of musicians and vocalists, consisting solely of senior citizens, performed near an historic privately-sponsored Nativity scene which has been on display in Illinois' Statehouse since December 2nd.

There was no official estimate, but those present said the Capitol Rotunda crowd was huge.  "What a wonderful experience," said Marian Blankenship, a spokesman and member of the choir.  "We didn't even use a PA system, yet 16 people sounded like a 100 member choir."

A rendition of "O Holy Night" nearly brought down the house.  And the audience, which surrounded the Rotunda space on all five levels was highly responsive, as the choir performed between 12 noon and 1 P.M. near the recently commemorated Springfield Nativity scene.

"What a joy," said Springfield Nativity Scene Committee (SNSC) Chairman, Daniel Zanoza.  "My heart nearly burst with joy when I heard about the day's events.  Unfortunately, I wasn't able to attend, but truly this is why so many dedicated people worked so hard to see a representation of Christ's birth standing in the state Capitol.  It truly reflected the spirit of the season."

Choir members were also taken on a tour of the Capitol Building complex before their concert.  This was the third in a series of musical revues meant to celebrate the Christmas season and the Nativity scene.

For some, the only fly in the ointment was the presence of a denigrating sign put up by an organization which calls itself the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF).  Headquartered in Madison, Wisconsin, the FFRF is the same group which caused controversy in the state of Washington after erecting a sign with identical wording which, according to many, is meant to insult the faith of Christians, Jews, Muslims and any individual who believes in a power higher than themselves.

"The juxtaposition of the two displays is telling," said Zanoza.  "The Nativity scene and accompanying plaque, proclaims love for one's neighbor and a prayer for hope and peace in accordance with Christ's message.  On the other hand, the message on the FFRF sign is designed to antagonize and belittle the faith of others.  A group that claims to seek equality and tolerance clearly demonstrates intolerance.  I am disappointed the sign is located where it is, but I guess it has a right to be there."

Some Constitutional scholars say there may be an issue of propriety regarding the placing of the atheist sign.  A Menorah which also now stands in the Capitol Building shares the message of hope and good will cited Zanoza, while the FFRF message is hardly appropriate in its placement among the Nativity scene, Menorah and the state's "holiday" tree.

A touching demonstration took place shortly after the Joyful Senior Singers & Ringers concluded their performance.  "After the program, we gathered around the negative sign and prayed," said Blankenship.  "It was certainly the conclusion of a day we will all remember for the rest of our lives."

Any group interested in performing in the Illinois Capitol Rotunda can contact the SNSC by either calling the Chicago-based Thomas More Society at (312) 782-1680 or e-mail Dan Zanoza, SNSC Chairman, at: springfieldnativityscene@xmail99.com.

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.

Ramos and Compean: Illegal Immigration Issue Leaves No Justice For Border Agents

Guest Commentary by Laurie Roth

This week I thought I would lose my mind when I heard of the horrifying decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals against Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. So many of us who had followed this case for the last few years were hoping that once all the evidence had finally been heard, unlike with the first trial, that justice would be done. Wrong!! Justice was not done!!!

You may recall in the first trial that the illegal alien, drug thug Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, who brought 743 pounds of marijuana over our border was given immunity by Prosecutor Sutton to testify against the two agents. I remember hearing Sutton and his cronies implying that the two agents were rogue racists against Mexicans and had shot a poor, desperate illegal alien in the back of the butt while he was running away from them. On and on the distortion, misinformation….ok….lies went on. I had thought from the very beginning that the racist accusations regarding the two agents against Mexicans was fascinating since Ramos and Compean are Mexican-Americans. It was also fascinating that ‘suddenly’ these two long standing, almost awarding winning agents, Dads and husbands would suddenly decide to break the rules and try and kill an unarmed, desperate illegal alien running away from them.

The only problem with Sutton’s idiot revelations was that folks like Dr. Jerry Corsi, lawyers and those concerned with the real truth started uncovering the facts and it was crystal clear that the poor little illegal alien wasn’t just a one time, accidental tourist of sorts, but a career drug thug who had come across the border with several drug shipments. It also became clear that there was no bullet hole in the back of poor little Davila’s butt, but rather it was through the side of his hip and had traveled into his groin area. This reflected the exact testimony of the two agents that they shot in self-defense and thought he had a gun pointed at them. He would have been turned back toward them to get shot through the side of the hip, NOT the back of the butt as Sutton testified.

Who would you believe in court? The illegal alien drug dealer who lied to everyone and was arrested many times carrying drugs, but was magically given immunity to testify against Ramos and Compean, or the two long standing and well liked border patrol agents who said they fired in self-defense and didn’t even know they had hit Davila?

Given the insanity that they were even arrested in the first place, let alone convicted and thrown in prison, I was naturally so relieved and thrilled that finally an appeal was in process. Those of us looking on for the last few years of suffering and horror with these two families, hoped that justice would finally be done. Apparently not yet!

I couldn’t help but notice, as the families did, how LONG the decision by the 5^th Circuit Court took. It took way longer than usual. Why? In addition, many of us also remember the numerous public statements by at least two of the three Judges who said several times on the record they were suspicious of the federal case against the agents and the inappropriate out of context use of 924c. How is it now, with all that was revealed this time, the immunity given to a guy who had continuously been arrested for bringing drugs across our border, the misuse of 924c to justify the obscene 11 and 12 year sentence and the endless other inconsistencies revealed in this case that this kind of decision could occur?

What now? We can’t just say this was another bad decision, but that is how it goes. Congressman Duncan Hunter said this week, “Those of us who have been following this case from the very beginning were confident that the Fifth Circuit, based on the evidence at hand, would rightfully correct this miscarriage of justice…Unfortunately, the Fifth Circuit decided to uphold this severe injustice.”

Congressman Hunter also said in a released statement on his Government web site that, “Agents Ramos and Compean were convicted based on the testimony of a known drug dealer that has since been convicted for running drugs into the U.S. while serving as the government’s star witness. The fact that the drug dealer’s criminal activity persisted even as he took the stand against these agents is reason enough to vacate these two convictions.”

Rep. Hunter stated he plans to appeal to the President again to review the facts of this case and immediately pardon Agents Ramos and Compean.

Congressman Ted Poe (R-Texas) has also weighed in and stated how bad the decision was and stated when congress put through U.S.C. section 924c that it was never meant to be applied against law enforcement officers. Poe promised he would get this horrible misuse and confusion regarding 924c clarified in Congress immediately.

That is all nice, if they finally clarify this, but will it be retroactive to help the agents rotting in prison? Let’s all weigh in on this and keep the pressure on our Congress and President, especially since our courts are failing in this case! Call, e-mail and fax your Representative and President Bush and say you want a pardon for Agent Ramos and Agent Compean now. E-mail Rep. Ted Poe and Rep. Duncan Hunter and share your support for their efforts to make this right. You can find contact info at www.house.gov

*  Laurie Roth is an author and host of the nationally syndicated “Laurie Roth Show” www.therothshow.com which is broadcast out of Washington state on the IRN-USA Radio Network. The Roth Show 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 

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.

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 15^th.

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.

RFFM.org Exclusive Stating High-Ranking Israeli Military Official Said Attack on Iran Coming Soon, Confirmed by Jerusalem Post

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

In two front page stories published in the Jerusalem Post [www.jpost.com] on June 24, 2008, the newspaper confirmed an RFFM.org Exclusive which quoted a high-ranking member of the Israeli military who said an attack on Iran was imminent.

One story included an interview conducted by the Jerusalem Post with John Bolton, the former American Ambassador to the United Nations.  Bolton predicted the Israeli military would target Iranian facilities which are in the process of developing that nation's first nuclear weapon.

Another Jerusalem Post front page article said Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff and America's highest ranking naval officer were both in Israel participating in high level talks.

For added details regarding future Israeli actions against Iran, including information not revealed in either Jerusalem Post front page columns see RFFM.org's Exclusive from June 23rd titled "High-Ranking Member of Israeli Military Says Attack on Iran Imminent"  http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/06/rffmorg-excusive-high-ranking-member-of-israeli-military-says-attack-on-iran-imminent.html.

Link to Jerusalem Post article, titled "Bolton: Israel to strike Iran after US elections" http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1214132667211&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull 

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. 

RFFM.org EXCLUSIVE: High-Ranking Member of Israeli Military Says Attack on Iran Imminent

Tel Aviv -- A high-ranking member of the Israeli military says an attack on Iran is imminent.  Experts predict Iran may be within six months of creating a nuclear weapon and the nation of Israel is bound and determined to prevent that from happening, according to the source.  It has been estimated the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has produced more than enough weapons-grade plutonium to create a high yield nuclear device and, due to this fact, the attack on Iran would be more devastating in nature than the Israeli bombing of a nuclear plant in Iraq in June of 1981.

 

The source also confirmed a recent trip by President George Bush to Israel was part of high-level talks between the two countries on the guidelines for the upcoming air strike.  During the visit, Bush gave his okay for the transfer of bunker-busting bombs to the Israeli Air Force.

 

The source said the attacks could take place any time between now and after the U.S. presidential election, but before the inauguration of the next president in January of 2009.  However, Israeli leaders are leaning towards launching the sorties against Iran sooner than later because of the imminent danger of Iran possessing a working nuclear bomb.

 

RFFM.org has also learned Bush's trip to Saudi Arabia was much more than an effort to increase OPEC oil production, if at all.  Bush wanted to consult with the Saudi's regarding Israeli plans to take out Iran's nuclear bomb-making capabilities and, from all reports, the Saudi's gave the green light to the Israeli mission.

 

Contrary to conventional wisdom, many states in the Middle East dread the prospect of a nuclear-capable Iran and the Islamic blackmail that might soon follow.

 

The Israeli source adds credence to predictions by John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the United Nations, posted on the Drudge Report on June 23rd, in which Bolton speculates on the aforementioned plans.

 

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.

Sure Osama's Pulling for Obama: But At Least America Is Safe From Terrorism--Until The Election

Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

Except for the dominant media and the most serious of Democratic Kool-Aid drinkers, it is clear the Islamic world would like to see Barack Hussein Obama become the next president of the United States of America.  I'm sorry, Sen. McCain, I know you don't like things stated so bluntly, even when it's true, but facts are facts.  Yes, I also know your temporary friends in the mainstream press like you because the "Straight Talk Express" prides itself on the use of political correctness.  In fact, that is why you have gotten as far as you have this political season, but Sen. McCain, don't expect that same treatment for very long, no matter how many times you tell fellow Republicans to lay off Obama.

 

Now that the junior Senator from Illinois has officially become the Democratic Party's presumptive presidential nominee, you will be depicted by the Obama-loving media as being a bit more qualified to be president than Saddam Hussein...and he's dead.  So, that should give you a clue as to the coverage you will be receiving between now and election day.

 

But back to Obama.  During the primary season, we learned Libyan strong man Muammar Qaddafi would like to see Obama ensconced in the White House come Inauguration Day.  Hamas and Hezbollah support Obama as well.  In addition, Obama, reportedly, has received praise from some high-ranking members of Al-Qaeda itself, along with encouragement from Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Cuba's Fidel Castro.  But let's get back to the wonderful world of radical Islam.  Obama said he would meet with Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad without the United States receiving any concessions from these tyrants, if he was elected U.S. president.  Some international observers thought such comments by Obama were extremely provocative, considering the fact America is trying to apply pressure on Iran through the United Nations in the attempt to convince that nation not to build a nuclear weapon.  Since Ahmadinejad said he would turn Israel into a waste land, many longtime international negotiators believe Obama's strategy could be called counterproductive at best.

 

There are some bad people who had to love what Obama has said during the last year and we all know who they are.  I'm sure Osama Bin Laden himself is sitting back somewhere in the mountainous region of northwest Pakistan and watching MSNBC's primary coverage.  Could you see MSNBC's Chris Matthews and Bin Laden at an Obama rally, both shedding a tear during one of those uplifting, teleprompter-aided speeches while chanting, "Yes, we can!  Yes, we can!"

 

Seriously, there is no doubt there was considerable celebration when Hillary Clinton decided to throw in the proverbial towel and agree to concede the Democratic presidential nomination to the upstart from Illinois.  But you wouldn't have seen the dancing in the streets in Tehran and Damascus on any of the major television networks.  Quite frankly, they would rather show George Bush rescuing a small puppy from a raging river than depict Obama in a negative light, even though they hate Mr. Bush with every fiber of their being.

 

Quite honestly, there are some benefits from radical Islam's love affair with Obama who they might possibly see as one of their own.  The time between now and the November election may be the safest for the United States since radical Islam reared its ugly head back in 1979.  There is no way an attack will take place on American soil directed by Al-Qaeda or any other Islamic faction.  A successful terrorist plot against the United States would doom the candidacy of Barack Obama simply because of Obama's heritage--fair or not.  Even when Obama tried to act as though he would be tough on Islamic terrorists, his stated policy would favor individuals like Bin Laden.

 

Earlier this year, Obama said he would bomb regions of northwest Pakistan in the effort to kill Osama Bin Laden.  The only problem with this strategy is such an action would be sure to topple the pro-American government of Pakistani leader, Pervez Musharraf.  Experts agree such military action would throw that nation into turmoil and probably lead to a radical Islamic regime taking over.  This would put hundreds of nuclear weapons in the hands of those who hate America the most; and one day a port in New York, San Francisco or Los Angeles might fall under the shadow of a mushroom cloud all because of some ill-conceived actions from an inexperienced president.

 

So, enjoy these times, America.  Those of you who plan on taking a trip to New York or Washington, D.C. should have no fears from terrorist attacks.  Why would radical Islam want to ruin a good thing?  Now, if Obama loses, the day after the election will be another story entirely.  The sad thing about it all is there are millions of Americans who would be happy to appease terrorists than fight them.  They make up the rank and file of the MoveOn.org crowd and, like Great Britain's Neville Chamberlain, they may see the period between today and the November election as "peace in our time."

 

I'm sorry, Sen. McCain, but I just had to say it.

 

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.