RFFM.ORG

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

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

by Daniel T. Zanoza

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information on the SNS, contact:

Daniel Zanoza: (217) 314-0211

Thomas Brejcha: (312) 782-1680

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

Springfield Nativity Scene Committee

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

Beth Rogers, Springfield
 
Arlene Sawicki, South Barrington 

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

The Army Dares Not Call "Major" Hasan's Ft. Hood Attack Act of Terrorism: Retired Intelligence Officer States His Case

EDITOR'S NOTE:  John Birch is a retired U.S. Army Intelligence Officer who held the rank of Major.  Birch also was the founder and former President of Conceal and Carry, Inc.  The following commentary is unedited and might include language not suitable for children. 

 

What You Won't Hear From The Dominant Media

 

Guest Commentary by Retired U.S. Army Major John Birch

I am a former Intelligence Officer, and still get some pretty interesting information that I would say, while not classified, is "insider." I have a few comments on "Major" Hasan, and have appended some information that I think will enlighten the picture of what is going on in our military. Political Correctness carried to the extreme.

Major Hasan is an abomination. The place he martyred those soldiers is the same building I was in a year ago prepping to go to Afghanistan, only I was at Fort Jackson. This facility is a one stop building to certify soldiers for deployment to a combat zone. And it was there that Hasan chose to martyr America's best while yelling Allahu Akbar!"

But it is not terrorism, so says de facto President Obama and his, apparently, kiss ass generals.

Hasan attended the same Mosque as the 9-11 terrorists in Virginia. Yes, it is still a thriving Mosque. He only wore his uniform, or Muslim robes. Hassan received a poor evaluation, and promotion to Major (what? not back in my day, one bad evaluation and you were toast.) Hasan was counseling our young soldiers that we are at war with his faith. (I think we are, but we didn't start it.) Hasan had time to procure two weapons. And lots of ammo. A man who snapped? Sounds like home grown, domestic, Islamic, premeditated terrorism to me.  And word is he was on leave, and in a zombie like state when he arrived on post. No one dares question a Muslim though. You end up in "Sensitivity Training" for life if you do. Islam is a religion of peace! LOL! If it were not so sad.

But the Army dares not call it terrorism. In fact, the Obama administration will not use the word terrorism anymore (overseas contingency operations, is the PC term du jour.) This is just a "violent tragedy?." A man who snapped because of combat he never saw, and never would have? I call Bullsh*t!

This building on Fort Hood was full of young patriots. You are only in the building to qualify for combat, or to qualify other soldiers for combat. Having been there, these are just older teenagers. Innocents! Now martyrs. They are mingled in with a few older Vets like me, retreads. I know he didn't just snap. He picked his target with precision, and now we can only mourn our honored dead.

None in the leadership of our US Army dare call it terrorism? Our generals have bowed to the new Messiah, the de facto President Obama. I am repulsed, and believe these martyrs may have died in vain, and for a false prophet.

In fairness, Obama's speech today at Ft. Hood must have been a great comfort to surviving families. It was well spoken. (I can't believe I just said something nice about Obama.) But Hasan was not disturbed or mental. He knew what he was doing. He was apparently in one of those Islamic trances they seem to be able to immerse themselves in. I wonder if his body was shaved?

"Allahu Akbar!" he shouted from a table top as he gunned down the unarmed sons and daughters of patriots. I hope and pray their precious blood refreshes the tree of liberty. And as for Obama treading on such sacred ground? I will show remarkable restraint for my disgust, good speech or not.

Expect to hear "Allahu Akbar" more, and more. How far can the American be pushed in the name of Political Correctness?

BTW: I don't think being in a shopping mall over Christmas is a good idea. What better way to wound our economy? Shoppers are lambs to the slaughter, protected by unarmed security guards.

John Birch
Major, US Army, Retired

With that I present, without attribution, one intelligence analysts view:

34 Clues to US Army Major Nidal Hasan's Motivations

"His motivations are unknown....."
"The motive behind the shootings was not clear....."
"Agents were trying to find a motivation for the attack....."
"It was unclear what the motive was....."
"There are many unknowns, most of all his motive....."
"The motive remains unclear....."
"It's too early to draw conclusions ....."
"It is unclear what might have motivated Major Hasan ....."
"The jury's still out on motivation....."

The media are still quite puzzled by Major Nidal Hasan's motivations that led him to gun down his fellow American soldiers at Ft. Hood. Yet in the same media's reporting, the below clues emerge. When gathered together, you would think the dots could easily be connected.

CLUES (sources: various mainstream media)

1. At the shooting, Hasan first bowed his head in prayer and then shouted “Allahu Akbar” (God is Great) as he shot over 50 soldiers in a calm and measured manner.

2. Store video the morning of the shooting shows Hasan wearing a traditional Muslim WHITE robe and hat. He had began wearing Arabic/Muslim-style clothing in recent weeks.

3. Hasan handed out Qurans to his neighbors a few days before and the day of the shooting, including giving a Quran to his neighbor at 9 am the day of the shooting, telling her, “I’m going to do good work for God” before leaving for the base.

4. A recent convert to Islam described how he frequently prayed with Hasan at the town mosque after Hasan was deployed to Fort Hood in July. They last worshiped together at predawn prayers on the day of the massacre when Hasan “appeared relaxed and not in any way troubled or nervous.”

5. Hasan told the convert that the ‘war on terror’ was really a war against Islam. Hasan also expressed anti-Jewish sentiments and defended suicide bombings.

6. During dinner the night before the shooting, Hasan felt he should not go to Afghanistan, that he was supposed to quit. “In the Koran, it says you are not supposed to have alliances with Jews or Christians, and if you are killed in the military fighting against Muslims, you will go to hell.”

7. Hasan’s deceased parents were Palestinians immigrants from the West Bank/Jordan. Hasan’s father was 16 years old when he immigrated to America and later operated a bar and grill in Roanoke, VA.

8. On a form Hasan filled out at the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, Maryland, he gave his nationality not as “American” but as “Palestinian.” Yet he was born in Arlington, Virginia on 8 Sep 1970. (See Allegiance in a Time of Globalization, DOD PERSEREC, Dec 2008)

9. Hasan has family in the Middle East, including a grandfather, uncle and cousins which he and they would visit each other.

10. Hasan’s cousin in the Palestinian city of Ramallah, Mohammad Munif Abdallah Hasan, said the Army major had wanted to leave the military because he felt disrespected over his religion.

11. His cousin said: “If he had killed one or two, I could say that he was defending himself. I could say that there could have been a problem between two sides which led to the use of weapons.”

12. Hasan visited websites espousing radical Islamist ideas.

13. Hasan made these kinds of statements to coworkers: Muslims have the right to rise up against the U.S. military. Muslims have a right to stand up against the aggressors. He spoke favorably about people who strap bombs on themselves and go into Times Square.

14. Hasan gave a presentation to military masters degree students in which he argued the war on terrorism was a war against Islam. This was in an environmental health class at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, MD. When challenged about what does his topic has to do with environmental health, Hasan became agitated, sweaty, nervous and emotional.

15. Hasan “made himself a lightning rod by making his extreme views known to everyone.”

16. Hasan was “put on probation early in his postgraduate work” and was “disciplined for proselytizing about his Muslim faith with patients and colleagues.”

17. Hasan was a “very devout” member of and daily visitor to the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, Md.  Attended prayers at least once a day, seven days a week. (See Saudi Publications On Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques. Important reading for security professionals)

18. A friend who also attended the mosque said, “He was my role model when it came to the Islam life. He was so devout. He would come to the early morning prayers -- even in the summer when it began at 4 am or 5 am, the early prayers I wouldn’t go to, he would be there.”

19. Hasan wrote “Allah” on his door in Silver Spring, MD according to his neighbor.

20. Hasan wrote an internet posting defending suicide bombers: “.....Suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory.....”

21. At the Muslim Community Center in Silver Spring, MD, he asked for feedback about a talk he had prepared for his Army supervisors on the role of Muslims in the military. Hasan argued that if military duties contradicted a soldier’s religion, the soldier should be released from duty.

22. After 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Hasan seemed to grow more disenchanted with his duties. “He did not talk war or politics, but he did tell me once the war started that what he worried most about was having to fight against other Muslims. He did not feel it was right.”—Friend at Muslim community center

23. Hasan attended two matchmaking events at his Muslim community center to find a “good Muslim woman” for his wife but he “had too many conditions” for his match . He wanted a very religious wife who adheres to the Quran, wore the hijab and prayed five times a day. First preference was an Arab woman followed by someone of Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi descent.  

24. Hasan avoided contact with his female coworkers. Refused to be photographed for an office Christmas photo since women were in the photo.

25. Hasan worshiped at the Texas mosque each day at 6 am, and often prayed there five times a day, especially during the holy month of Ramadan. (See Saudi Publications On Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques)

26. Hasan had been mentoring an 18-year old Catholic man on the ways of Islam. Only once during their 12 meetings did Hasan NOT talk about religion. Hasan told this man that Muslims shouldn’t be in the U.S. military, because obviously Muslims shouldn’t kill Muslims. He told him not to join the Army.

27. At the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland, Hasan told his fellow military master degree students, “I’m a Muslim first and an American second.” (See Allegiance in a Time of Globalization, DOD PERSEREC, Dec 2008)

28. Hasan gave an hour-long talk on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington DC. He said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats. That non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire.

29. Fellow doctors have recounted how they were repeatedly harangued by Hasan about Islam.

30. During a conversation with a leader of the Texas mosque he attended, Hasan seemed obsessed with the question of what to tell Muslim soldiers about fighting fellow Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.

31. Hasan attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists.

32. This mosque was led by radical imam Anwar al-Awlaki said to be a ‘spiritual adviser’ to three of the hijackers who attacked America on 9/11. al-Awlaki was born in the US but now lives in Yemen. He is an al-Qaeda supporter who targets US Muslims with radical online lectures on Islam.

33. Hasan’s eyes “lit up” when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki's teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas.

34. Today (9 November 09), al-Awlaki wrote on his blog a post titled, “Nidal Hassan Did the Right Thing.”
“Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people.
 .....Any decent Muslim cannot live, understanding properly his duties towards his Creator and his fellow Muslims, and yet serve as a US soldier. Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.
 How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the U.S. army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal.
 The heroic act of brother Nidal also shows the dilemma of the Muslim American community. Increasingly they are being cornered into taking stances that would either make them betray Islam or betray their nation. Many amongst them are choosing the former.  
 The fact that fighting against the US army is an Islamic duty today cannot be disputed. No scholar with a grain of Islamic knowledge can defy the clear cut proofs that Muslims today have the right -- rather the duty -- to fight against American tyranny.
 Nidal has killed soldiers who were about to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in order to kill Muslims. The American Muslims who condemned his actions have committed treason against the Muslim Ummah and have fallen into hypocrisy.
Allah(swt) says: Give tidings to the hypocrites that there is for them a painful punishment......May Allah grant our brother Nidal patience, perseverance and steadfastness and we ask Allah to accept from him his great heroic act. Amen.”

Among the reader comments to his post:
• “May Allah grant our brother Nidal patience, perseverance and steadfastness and we ask Allah to accept from him his great heroic act.”
• “That’s the first thing that came to my mind, may Allah reward this man for his bravery. Allah has enlightened him with his duty unlike the hypocrites of this age and time. May he be accepted as a shaheed.”
• “May Allah give brother Nidal ease and may Allah give pain to the enemies.”

34 "clues", probably more to come.

CI Centre instructor Dr. Tawfik Hamid, a Muslim reformer, author and expert, wrote on Friday:

There is a tendency among various decision makers to discuss why some Muslims turn to the use violence while others do not, considering Muslims are exposed to the same religious teachings.

This approach may theoretically allow decisions makers to avoid addressing the role of religious teaching as the true cause of the problem and allow them to focus instead on the individual factors that make a particular person use violence.

In this regard, I would like to mention the following illustrative example: When people smoke cigarettes only some of them develop lung cancer. This does not mean that smoking is not a main cause of lung cancer.

The same applies to Islamism phenomenon. When Muslims are exposed to the radical Islamic teaching, only some of them become violent. This also does not mean that the teaching is not the cause of developing the violence.

The most simple solution for the problems in the previous examples is simply to limit the exposure to the offending agent (either smoking or to the radical teaching) rather than trying to change the response of the cells or the humans to the causative agent. This can happen in Muslim societies by providing them with an alternative to the radical teachings to promote values of love and peaceful coexistence instead of hatred and intolerance.

If I could make a suggestion to the senior officials in the Military, Intelligence, Homeland Security, and others, I would tell them to learn how to detect early signs of Islamic Radicalization among their employees in order to take appropriate measures before radicalization manifests. Failure to do so or learn these signs can lead to a disaster inside the US, especially if Islamic radicalism appears in facilities that deal with radiological or biological material or weapon.


(MORE)
------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------

The following was written by CI Centre instructor Dr. Tawfik Hamid who is a Muslim reformer, author and expert on the Jihadist radicalization process (as he himself had become radicalized while in Med school in Egypt):

US Reaction to Muslims in its Military MUST be well calculated
by Dr. Tawfik Hamid
9 Nov 09

After the Ft. Hood tragedy, I have been asked by many to address what the US must do with American Muslims in the military.

Some took an emotional response and promoted the view that Muslims should not be allowed in the US military.

Others tried to approach the issue in a more rational manner. The WSJ addressed some aspects of this sensitive topic (See: Muslim Population in the Military Raises Difficult Issues).

The possibility of a backlash against Muslims in the military was also discussed on the CNN. I will summarize my answer as follows.

There are three possibilities (or options) for the reaction:

Option 1: Stop all Muslims from working in the military

Option 2: Give permission to Muslims in the US Army so that they do not fight against their fellow Muslims.

Option 3: Do nothing

The first option (to stop all Muslims from working in the military) will deprive the US from benefiting from the experience of true moderate Muslims who also fight Islamic Radicalism.

The experience of these moderates can be pivotal and invaluable in achieving the needed victory over radical Muslims. This situation makes it imperative for the US officials to set parameters to define who is moderate and who is radical.

Using proper parameters to define these terms can allow the US to use the knowledge of true moderate Muslims effectively to fight radical Islam and at the same time avoid discrimination against all Muslims.

Failure to set these parameters can allow many radicals to infiltrate sensitive positions in the military and may end in catastrophic consequences.

ABC's Test to Define Radical Islam by Tawfik Hamid:

If a Muslim or an Islamic organization, school or mosque is moderate, they should be able to unambiguously and publicly denounce the following concepts:

Apostates killing
Beating women and stoning them to death for adultery
Calling Jews pigs and monkeys
Declaring war on Non-Muslims to spread Islam after offering Non Muslims three options - subjugate to Islam, pay Jizia (a humiliating tax), or be killed
Enslavement of other human beings
Fighting and killing Jews before the "End of Days"
Gay discrimination, hostility, execution
A true moderate person or organization must be able to immediately denounce the above concepts and stand publicly and unambiguously against them. The Muslim world can not expect the world to consider Islam peaceful as long as they teach and promote such tenets.

For investigators: Note that Muslims are allowed to lie to non-believers and those they consider apostates so as to protect the Islamic faith.

The second option (to give exemptions to Muslims in the US military so that they do not fight against their fellow Muslims) raises several important concerns as well.

This option could be seen as a form of discrimination against non-Muslims in the military. In other words, why should non-Muslims take the risk of going to war and die while their fellow Muslim soldiers are refusing to defend their nation? In this case we will face one of the most bizarre situations in history when non-Muslims have to die to defend Muslims who sympathize with the enemy and refuse to fight it.

What if ALL US military soldiers converted to Islam? Shall we just surrender to Islamic Radicals because No one in the military is willing to defend the country anymore?
Accepting this option casts doubt on the loyalty of these Muslims (who refuse to fight another Muslim to protect the US) to the US.  If these Muslims were more loyal to their "Umma" (Muslim nation) than to the US then they should be considered a fifth column and MUST not be allowed to work in military or any sensitive position.

Those American Muslims who refuse to fight another Muslim to defend the US must be ready to answer the following imperative question: Is it OK for them to kill Christians or Hindus if they attacked the US but it is unacceptable by them to kill Muslims if they did attacked their country?

If Radical Muslims declared war on the US, will Muslims in US military allow the killing of their fellow American citizens to avoid fighting their radical Muslim brothers? In other words, are the lives of their fellow Americans less in their view than the lives of the radical Muslims?
As we can see the second option raises serious concerns.

If the third situation (Do Nothing) is accepted as the best type of reaction, many Islamic radicals will be able to infiltrate our military.

In this situation, the disaster of Ft. Hood may look trivial compared to what could happen if these radicals managed to use radiological, biological, or chemical weapons against our society.

In such a case, we may wake up one day to the news that an Islamic radical in US army released a lethal bacteriological or viral agent inside the US that will kill thousands of people or more and will destroy the economy of the country. The tragedy that could happen in this case is far beyond words to describe it.

Doing nothing and just waiting for another attack by a radical Islamist inside the US is a catastrophic approach. We were just lucky in the US that Dr. Nidal Hasan, who allegedly committed the atrocity in Ft. Hood, did not have access to a biological weapon.

An important approach to deal with such a complex situation is to educate senior officials in the US how to detect early signs of radicalization -- both overt and covert -- as this can allow these officials to take appropriate measures to prevent a possible disaster.

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

 

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

RFFM.org Exclusive: Major Nidal Malik Hasan's Killing Spree at Ft. Hood: Eyewitness Account Of What Really Happened

EXCLUSIVE

 

EDITOR'S NOTE:

 

The following is a narrative from a U.S. Army Colonel who was an eyewitness to the attack on fellow soldiers by Major Nidal Malik Hasan at Ft. Hood, Texas on Thursday, November 5th, 2009 which led to the deaths of 13 members of the U.S. Army and the wounding of 30 others.  This JAG (Judge Advocate General) officer had his account transcribed by a retired General in the U.S. Army.  The story told here may be in contrast to what is being released to the media by C.I.D.'s* inqueries into the incident.

 

The following first person narrative is told by an Army officer who prefers to remain anonymous, yet desires the truth be told. 

 

Since I don't know when I'll sleep (it's 4 am now), I'll write what happened (the abbreviated version ..... The long one is already part of the investigation with more to come).  I'll not write about any part of the investigation that I've learned about since (as a witness I know more than I should since inevitably my JAG brothers and sisters are deeply involved in the investigation).  Don't assume that most of the current media accounts are very accurate.  They're not.  They'll improve with time.  Only those of us who were there really know what went down.  But as they collate our statements they'll get it right.

I did my SRP last week (Soldier Readiness Processing) but you're supposed to come back a week later to have them look at the smallpox vaccination site (it's this big itchy growth on your shoulder).  I am probably alive because I pulled a ---------- and entered the wrong building first (the main SRP building).  The Medical SRP building is off to the side.  Realizing my mistake I left the main building and walked down the sidewalk to the medical SRP building.  As I'm walking up to it the gunshots start.  Slow and methodical.  But continuous.  Two ambulatory wounded came out.  Then two soldiers dragging a third who was covered in blood.

Hearing the shots but not seeing the shooter, along with a couple other soldiers, I stood in the street and yelled at everyone who came running that it was clear but to "RUN!"  I kept motioning people fast.

About 6-10 minutes later (the shooting continuous), two cops ran up, one male, one female.  We pointed in the direction of the shots.  they headed that way (the medical SRP building was about 50 meters away).  Then a lot more gunfire.  A couple minutes later a balding man in ACU's* came around the building carrying a pistol and holding it tactically.  He started shooting at us and we all dived back to the cars behind us.

I don't think he hit the couple other guys who were there.  I did see the bullet holes later in the cars.  First, I went behind a tire and then looked under the body of the car.  I've been trained how to respond to gunfire … but with my own weapon.  To have no weapon I don't know how to explain what that felt like.  I hadn't run away and stayed because I had thought about the consequences or anything like that.  I wasn't thinking anything through.  Please understand, there was no intention.  I was just staying there because I didn't think about running.  It never occurred to me that he might shoot me.  Until he started shooting in my direction and I realized I was unarmed.

Then the female cop comes around the corner.  He shoots her.  (According to the news accounts she got a round into him.  I believe it, I just didn't see it; he didn't go down.)  She goes down.  He starts reloading.  He's fiddling with his mags.  Weirdly, he hasn't dropped the one that was in his weapon.  He's holding the fresh one and the old one (you do that on the range when time is not of the essence but in combat you would just let the old mag go).  I see the male cop around the left corner of the building.  (I'm about 15-20 meters from the shooter.)  I yell at the cop, "He's reloading, he's reloading.  Shoot him!  Shoot him!”

You have to understand, everything was quiet at this point.  The cop appears to hear me and comes around the corner and shoots the shooter.  He goes down.  The cop kicks his weapon further away.  I sprint up to the downed female cop.  Another captain (I think he was with me behind the cars) comes up as well.  She's bleeding profusely out of her thigh.  We take our belts off and tourniquet her just like we've been trained (I hope we did it right … we didn't have any CLS (combat lifesaver) bags with their awesome tourniquets on us, so we worked with what we had).

Meanwhile, in the most bizarre moment of the day, a photographer was standing over us taking pictures.  I suppose I'll be seeing those tomorrow.  Then a soldier came up and identified himself as a medic.  I then realized her weapon was lying there unsecured (and on "fire").  I stood over it and when I saw a cop yelled for him to come over and secure her weapon (I would have done so but I was worried someone would mistake me for a bad guy).

I then went over to the shooter.  He was unconscious.  A Lt Colonel was there and had secured his primary weapon for the time being.  He also had a revolver.  I couldn't believe he was one of ours.  I didn't want to believe it.  Then I saw his name and rank and realized this wasn't just some specialist with mental issues.

At this point there was a guy there from CID and I asked him if he knew he was the shooter and had him secured.  He said he did.  I then went over the slaughter house. the medical SRP building.  No human should ever have to see what that looked like, and I won't tell you.  Just believe me.  Please.  There was nothing to be done there.

Someone then said there was someone critically wounded around the corner.  I ran around (while seeing this floor to ceiling window that someone had jumped through movie style) and saw a large African-American soldier lying on his back with two or three soldiers attending.  I ran up and identified two entrance wounds on the right side of his stomach, one exit wound on the left side and one head wound.  He was not bleeding externally from the stomach wounds (though almost certainly internally) but was bleeding from the head wound.  A soldier was using a shirt to try and stop the head bleeding.  He was conscious so I began talking to him to keep him so.  He was 42, from North Carolina, he was named something Jr., his son was named something III and he had a daughter as well.  His children lived with him.  He was divorced.  I told him the blubber on his stomach saved his life.  He smiled.  A young soldier in civvies showed up and identified himself as a combat medic.  We debated whether to put him on the back of a pickup truck.  A doctor (well, an audiologist) showed up and said you can't move him, he has a head wound.  We finally sat tight.

I went back to the slaughterhouse.  They weren't letting anyone in there. not even medics.  Finally, after about 45 minutes had elapsed some cops showed up in tactical vests.  Someone said the TBI building was unsecured.  They headed into there.  All of a sudden a couple more shots were fired.  People shouted there was a second shooter.  A half hour later the SWAT showed up.  There was no second shooter.  That had been an impetuous cop, apparently.  But that confused things for a while.

Meanwhile I went back to the shooter.  The female cop had been taken away.  A medic was pumping plasma into the shooter.  I'm not proud of this but I went up to her and said, "This is the shooter, is there anyone else who needs attention... do them first".  She indicated everyone else living was attended to.  I still hadn't seen any EMTs or ambulances.  I had so much blood on me that people kept asking me if I was ok, but that was all other people's blood.  Eventually (an hour and a half to two hours after the shootings) they started landing choppers.  they took out the big African American guy and the shooter.  I guess the ambulatory wounded were all at the SRP building.  Everyone else in my area was dead.

I suppose the emergency responders were told there were multiple shooters.  I heard that was the delay with the choppers (they were all civilian helicopters).   They needed a secure LZ* but other than the initial cops who did everything right, I didn't' see a lot of them for a while.  I did see many a soldier rush out to help their fellows/sisters.  There was one female soldier, I don't' know her name or rank but I would recognize her anywhere, who was everywhere helping people.

A couple people, mainly civilians, were hysterical, but only a couple.  One civilian freaked out when I tried to comfort her when she saw my uniform.  I guess she had seen the shooter up close.  A lot of soldiers were rushing out to help even when we thought there was another gunman out there.

This Army is not broken no matter what the pundits say.  Not the Army I saw.  And then they kept me for a long time to come.

Oh, and perhaps the most surreal thing, at 1500 (the end of the workday on Thursdays) when the bugle sounded we all came to attention and saluted the flag in the middle of it all.

This is what I saw.  It can't have been real.  But this is my small corner of what happened.

 

* LZ  -- Landing Zone

* ACU's  --  Army Combat Uniform

* CID  --  Criminal Investigation Division

 

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.

Keith Olbermann & NBC's Sunday Night Football: An Insult To NFL Viewers

NBC's Liberal Agenda:  Mixing Politics With Sports Antagonistic To Conservatives 

 

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

 

Keith Olbermann is the most strident anti-conservative on television.  I won't call him a liberal.  I won't call him a leftist and I certainly won't call him a journalist.  The truth is Olbermann hates 50% of Americans who, according to recent polling, now consider themselves conservative.  Therefore, the question begs to be asked:  Why is the host of MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" a part of NBC's "Sunday Night Football" coverage? 

 

Olbermann's MSNBC show--which gets whipped nightly in the ratings by Bill O'Reilly (The O'Reilly Factor--FOX News Channel)--is possibly the most biased thing going on cable news.  Olbermann makes no effort to present counterpoint on his program.  The weak effort is clearly a mechanism meant to attack not only Republicans, but conservatives on the whole. 

 

Last year, it became obvious NBC--which is owned by General Electric--was a mainstream media shill for Barack Obama's presidential campaign.  Even though the dominant media seemed to be an extension of Obama's campaign effort, NBC's coverage of the 2008 presidential election was an insult to journalistic objectivity and fairness.  In fact, GE's CEO Jeffrey R. Immelt is now being rewarded for NBC's "work" on behalf of the Obama administration.  General Electric stands to earn billions of dollars if the Cap and Trade bill [HR2454, officially titled, the "American Clean Energy and Security Act"] is passed into law.

 

In recent years, NBC, like General Electric, has been losing money as fast as the Obama administration can spend it.  The network and its MSNBC cable operation are losing propositions.  Amazingly, Olbermann also anchors MSNBC's political coverage--which is a joke of the greatest proportions, to say the least. 

 

Last year, NBC received thousands of complaints from viewers regarding the network's coverage of the NFL (National Football League).  Olbermann teamed up with the highly reputable and likeable sportscaster Bob Costas on NBC's pre-game show, providing what was supposed to be witty commentary and analysis of the NFL.  However, Olbermann wasn't witty in any sense of the word.

 

I was stunned when Olbermann returned to the Sunday Night Football line-up again this year.  Olbermann, who got his start on ESPN as an anchor for that cable sports network, evidently convinced someone that his meager talents were being wasted on sports.  He then found a niche as a news anchor and was promoted to lead MSNBC's coverage of the political world. 

 

Today, NBC is attempting to pass off Olbermann as a poor man's Howard Cosell.  The only difference is, no matter what you thought of the late Cosell, whether you loved him or hated him, he was a journalist with impeccable credentials and, though controversial, Cosell was a man who not only covered sports news, but, at times, was news himself. 

 

In contrast, Olbermann's presence on NBC's Sunday Night Football broadcast is a slap in the face to a significant segment of the network's viewing audience.  Even though it is apparent Olbermann's role as part of NBC's Sunday Night Football broadcast team has been significantly reduced this season, he still elicits a negative reaction from viewers who are aware of his position as a political hack for the Democratic Party.  Now, it would make sense if Olbermann was an astute analyst of the game of football.  However, this is hardly the case.  If Olbermann were extremely witty and added a lighter touch to the pre- and post-game coverage of the sport, I could consider giving NBC a pass for assigning him this very visible position.  Yet Olbermann is neither a knowledgeable football analyst or a person of stellar wit--like FOX's NFL Sunday humorist Frank Caliendo. 

 

I believe Olbermann's role on NBC's Sunday Night Football broadcast team represents a poke in the eye to conservatives.  Indeed, it could be nothing else because the man has little or no talent.  Olbermann is a hater to the extreme.  Are we supposed to forget Olbermann's caustic and vitriolic politics just because NBC has cast him as a sports guy?

 

My suggestion for those who love football, like I do, is simple:  Skip the pre-game and half-time show and only watch the game itself on NBC.  When my home team is playing, I'll listen to the radio until kickoff, during half-time and after the game is over.  Frankly, I don't need the aggravation which comes every time Olbermann's face is on camera and he opens his mouth. 

 

NBC's decision to bring back Olbermann is par for the course, as far as the failing network is concerned, but Keith Olbermann is far from par.  Olbermann is a triple bogey in golfing parlance and that is giving him more than he deserves. 

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.

CNN Anchor Lou Dobbs Telling It Straight: Pro-Obama Media Worm May Be Turning

Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

Lou Dobbs, a longtime anchor for CNN has recently come under fire from the left.  In 2007, Dobbs led the charge against immigration reform legislation--which, if passed, would have given amnesty to over 12 million immigrants who are living in America illegally.  More recently, the host of "Lou Dobbs Tonight" addressed questions regarding President Barack Obama's citizenship.  Dobbs was the only mainstream media type who gave attention to a story which has been simmering beneath the surface ever since Obama announced his presidential candidacy.

While watching his show the other night, I would have sworn I had the FOX NEWS channel tuned in.  Dobbs did not provide the usual stamp of approval which Obama receives from a vast majority of the left-leaning media.  The program was "fair and balanced", featuring guests from both sides of the political aisle.  This is something seldom seen on CNN, but perhaps there is reason behind the madness.

Television ratings indicate FOX News is dominating its competition.  In fact, FOX beats out CNN, MSNBC and CNBC combined.  Indeed, the numbers aren't even close.  More amazing is the fact programs like FOX's "The O'Reilly Factor" is now attracting nearly as many viewers as the "CBS Evening News with Katie Couric".  No cable news programming has ever challenged the three major networks in viewership.  For example, the CBS Evening News, anchored by Couric, attracts around six million viewers each evening.  "The O'Reilly Factor" consistently has 5.4 million viewers (and growing) who now watch Bill O'Reilly in the 7 P.M. Central time slot combined with the rebroadcast at 10 P.M.

FOX's "fair and balanced" format translates into huge dollars for the Rupert Murdoch-owned entity and other networks are surely taking notice.  Dobbs has been running against the grain of CNN's past liberal leanings and the fact his program is still on the air is a testament to a change we may soon be seeing on other networks.

I can only say, "it's about time."  During the coverage of the 2008 presidential election, the mainstream media's shameless promoting of the Obama campaign reached the level of absurdity.  Journalistic integrity flew out the window like never before.  It is safe to safe Obama would not now be President of the United States if the dominant media had covered the election with any form of objectivity.  Lou Dobbs' show is the only CNN programming that has increased in viewership.  The bottom line is:  Dobbs is making money for his network, by acting like a journalist should.

In recent years, political ideology in journalism has become blatant.  Balanced reporting in the mainstream media has become a long lost art.  Commentary has been blended into the news and this has resulted in falling ratings for the three major networks--ABC, CBS and NBC.  But cable news has taken the biggest hit in recent years with CNN losing its dominant position of leadership in television ratings.  In addition, MSNBC and CNBC have been losing propositions for General Electric (their parent company) from the beginning.

However, other CNN programming seems to be following Dobbs' lead.  Wolf Blitzer, CNN's primary news anchor, has also demonstrated a turn towards more objective coverage of the political scene.  Of course, there is the possibility Barack Obama's falling popularity in the polls may be a factor in the recent shift towards more balanced news coverage on CNN. 

One can only hope the dominant media has come to its senses regarding its charge to inform the American public, presenting the facts objectively about issues, thereby allowing the public to process information on their own.  Indeed, all journalists should follow Bill O'Reilly's mantra of "The No Spin Zone" regarding reporting on matters of social and political import.

With the need for honest and balanced coverage of issues like health care reform, government bail-outs and Cap and Trade, the time has come for a return to sanity in the mainstream press.  Lou Dobbs may be leading the way, getting back to basics.  Dobbs has come under fire from special interest groups on the left who want CNN to send Dobbs packing.  Hopefully, CNN will demonstrate common sense and the courage to stand by the one bright light who may change the fortunes of a failing news operation.

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.

O'Reilly Cheap Shots Free Republic, But He Wants To Be Liked

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director  

I don't know about anyone else, but Bill O'Reilly (O'Reilly Factor--FNC) seems to be bending over backwards to make friends with the left.  For some reason, O'Reilly took another cheap shot at conservative blogs the other day, specifically targeting the Free Republic [www.freerepublic.com].
 
However, it is obvious what the popular television host is trying to do.  By attacking blogs like the Free Republic, O'Reilly is trying to position himself as a man of reason, beyond the trappings of political partisanship.
 
Quite honestly, it is clear O'Reilly needs to do more homework before making himself look foolish.  Comparing the Free Republic with Internet sites like the Huffington Post and MoveOn.org is ridiculous.  The hate spewed forth from the left cannot be found on the Free Republic and most other conservative blogs and web sites.
 
There is reason behind O'Reilly's madness.  The man obviously has a big ego.  O'Reilly enjoys those appearances on the David Letterman Show and The View.  Like former presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, O'Reilly wants to be liked and throwing some digs at conservative groups scores points with the far left.
 
O'Reilly's motives can also be seen in his refusal to criticize Barack Obama's presidency.  Anyone with a modicum of sense understands the current President's fiscal policies are disastrous for America.  But we must remember during the run up to the presidential election, Obama appeared on the Factor and O'Reilly's stating of the obvious would make another appearance by Obama on his show unlikely.  Plus, it's nice to be invited to those parties on the swank upper east side of Manhattan and that won't happen either, if O'Reilly tells it like it is.
 
Subsequently, the Free Republic has become a boogey-man for O'Reilly.  By criticizing the blog and its contributors, he thinks this is endearing to the people he envies.  Yet, at heart, O'Reilly does envy individuals, like Rush Limbaugh, because the popular radio host doesn't care if he's invited to chat with Whoppi Goldberg or Diane Sawyer.
 
What's most important to Bill O'Reilly is Bill O'Reilly.  If I hear him "bloviate" about his book being on the New York Times best seller list one more time, I'll scream.  O'Reilly needs to get back to his original mandate, but, unfortunately, of late, the "No Spin Zone" has us all spinning.

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.

Obama/Notre Dame Visit Outrages + Energizes: Pro-Life Cause Finally Gets Deserved MSM Notice

by Daniel T. Zanoza for Champion News.Net

It's safe to say the mainstream media is reluctant to cover the pro-life issue.  However, President Barack Obama's invitation to the University of Notre Dame--where he will give the commencement speech and receive an honorary degree--have opened doors to the pro-life movement which have never been accessible before.

During recent weeks, Notre Dame has come under a torrent of criticism from high-ranking members of the clergy, including Chicago's Francis Cardinal George and a multitude of Catholic officials who see Obama's visit to the University as a violation of church tenet.

Notre Dame by-laws state that the Board of Trustees is charged to "Ensure that the University maintains its essential character as a Catholic institution of higher learning."  The President's speech and subsequent award of an honorary degree goes against the pro-life principles as handed down from the Vatican and church hierarchy.

To date, over a quarter million people have signed an online petition protesting Obama's scheduled visit to the premier Catholic institution of higher learning.  As the date of Obama's appearance gets closer, the firestorm calling for Notre Dame officials to un-invite the U.S. President continues to gain momentum.

According to the letter accompanying the petition addressed to Father John Jenkins, President of Notre Dame ...

(Excerpt) Read more at ChampionNews.Net 

http://www.championnews.net/article.php?sid=1812