RFFM.ORG

Ft. Hood Massacre: Time For Military To Do Religious Profiling To Weed Out Islamic Extremists

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, An Islamic Extremist, Goes On Killing Spree In Ft. Hood, Texas

 

Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

 

If you are someone who abides by political correctness, I suggest you not read this commentary.  You certainly won't find what I have to say in the mainstream media; even FOX News probably will not address the issue I'm about to discuss. 

 

On Thursday (November 5th, 2009), Major Nidal Malik Hasan went on a murderous spree resulting in the deaths of 13 military personnel and the wounding of 30 others at the time I'm writing this column.  If this were the first time a member of the Islamic faith slaughtered his military brethren, we could chalk it up to an anomaly, a story about an individual who "lost it" and struck down his fellow members of the U.S. Armed Forces.  However, Hasan's madness is not the first time an Islamic extremist has put his allegiance to a religious doctrine before service to our nation--to which he was sworn. 

 

During the run up to the War in Iraq, a convert to Islam tossed a hand grenade into a tent, killing and wounding those who would have given their lives to protect him.  Earlier this year, though not a member of the military, an Islamic convert, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, shot and killed Pvt. William Long while wounding another at a U.S. Army recruiting office in Little Rock, Arkansas.  And now comes Major Hasan who performed an act of terror which will long be remembered by all Americans.

 

Of course, Barack Hussein Obama tells us we are not in a war against terrorism.  In fact, we are constantly reminded by the President--and a vast majority of the dominant media--that those who adhere to the Islamic faith are peaceful, God-fearing members of society and only a very small contingent of this faith are involved in Jihad against the United States and other "infidels" across the world.

 

I am sure groups like the ACLU would be the first to call my following suggestion "religious bigotry" and an assault on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  Indeed, politicians themselves will chime in to remind the country that what happened at Ft. Hood was the result of a madman and not representative of an entire faith.  Well, perhaps this is true.  But I do not recall any stories of Hindus who are members of the military going a deadly rampage, targeting fellow servicemen.  I also don't recall hearing about Jews from Skokie, Illinois tossing grenades into places where soldiers, Marines or members of the Air Force were gathered.  And though I may have missed it, I don't recall reports of an Irish-Catholic from Boston serving on an aircraft carrier who killed fellow sailors.

 

I think it would be safe to say, none of us would be surprised if another attack on the U.S. military took place at the hands of an individual who believes those who do not share his or her religious beliefs are worthy of death.  Therefore, I have a suggestion that any reasonable person should agree with.  It's time for the U.S. military to seriously consider the use of religious profiling, especially in the case of those who follow the Islamic faith.  What took place in Ft. Hood, Texas on Thursday was certainly avoidable.  Hasan has been reported to have made comments regarding America's presence in the Middle East and suggested acts of violence against Americans (both military and non-military) were justified.  This should have set off warning bells by those who were aware of Hasan's religious politics.  However, nothing was done and now at least thirteen military families will be burying their dead in days to come.  And those who were wounded will live with the horror visited upon them by Hasan for the rest of their lives.

 

America is in a war on terror, no matter what Barack Hussein Obama tells us.  While he is dithering over General John McCrystal's request for 40,000 additional troops to help conduct America's counter-insurgency efforts in Afghanistan, soldiers continue to come home to their loved ones in flag-draped coffins.  But Obama did pay them respect in a recent photo-op when one family agreed to take a photograph with our Commander-in-Chief at Dover Air Force Base. 

 

I am NOT saying all members of the Islamic faith are potential mass-murderers.  But there is a considerable segment of those who practice this religion who believe in Jihad and see a path to Heaven by killing as many members of other religions as possible. 

 

Interestingly enough, the Dept. of Homeland Security issued two reports--since Obama took office--citing social conservatives, including those who believe in the sanctity of life, as potential threats to our nation. 

 

It is time for America to wake up, put aside political correctness and recognize there are those who would and will, if given the opportunity, murder for their faith.  I don't believe it would take much of a psychological evaluation to separate the wheat from the chaff regarding members of Islam who are in the U.S. military.  The process would not have to be intrusive and, of course, it would not be foolproof.  But Islamic extremists get high points from fellow extremists for killing those who have volunteered to defend their nation.  It's time to bring common sense into this equation.  Otherwise, we can expect more Ft. Hood-type massacres in the future and if we can prevent this from occurring at the expense of hurting someone's feelings, so be it. 

 

Subsequently, before President Obama pushes to allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military, he should get Islamic extremists out.

 

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.

Medal Of Honor Winners: In Honor Of Our Fallen On Memorial Day

RFFM.org Honors All Who Paid the Ultimate Price to Defend Our Freedom

An Interview With Doug Sterner, Creator of Home of Heroes web site, by Dan Gura, a contributing editor to RFFM.org

Gura writes, "Today I offer something which will make you stand a little straighter, a little prouder to be an American." 

Do you know who Jason L. Dunham is? How about Paul Ray Smith? You should because they are two of America’s finest sons; they are heroes in the War on Terror.

These days the press doesn’t seem to care very much about conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty. No, they’re too busy whining every time some two bit terrorist thug sniffles, or mugging over Paris Hilton’s latest foibles to tell you about these real heroes. So I’ll tell you why you should know these two men.

Corporal Dunham, U.S. Marine Corps, received the Medal of Honor for his actions on April 14, 2004 in Karabilah, Iraq after an insurgent released a hand grenade. His citation reads, “Aware of the immediate danger and without hesitation, Corporal Dunham covered the grenade with his helmet and body, bearing the brunt of the explosion and shielding his Marines from the blast. In an ultimate and selfless act of bravery in which he was mortally wounded, he saved the lives of at least two fellow Marines.”

Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith, U.S. Army, received the Medal of Honor for his actions on April 4, 2003 near Baghdad International Airport. His citation reads…”his Task Force was violently attacked by a company sized enemy force…As the fight developed Sergeant First Class Smith braved hostile enemy fire to personally engage the enemy with hand grenades and anti-tank weapons and organized the evacuation of three wounded soldiers…In total disregard for his own life, he maintained his exposed position in order to engage the attacking enemy force. During this action, he was mortally wounded.”

Want to learn more about real heroes? There is a most incredible web site, www.homeofheroes.com, which I encourage everyone to visit--often. But be forewarned that your eyes will tear up as you read the stories of the 3,457 individual acts of heroism which have earned the Medal of Honor. You can download the individual citations and read with awe the true stories of extraordinary heroism thanks to a Vietnam veteran and winner of two Bronze Star Medals, Doug Sterner, U.S. Army, retired (photo). 

Some amazing facts: Doug Sterner's website is huge—3.5 gigabytes in size—and so extensive that it would take 150,000 sheets of paper (that’s 30 cases!) to print it all. Every month more than ½ million different visitors visit the website. The site includes medal Citations listed by war, branch of service and by state. It also contains an impressive U.S. History section, presidential inaugural addresses, downloadable books and enough patriotic resources to guarantee your child an A+ on a term paper about real heroes.

Webmaster Sterner, "considered the most knowledgeable historian of America’s highest award for valor, the Medal of Honor," was kind enough to grant me the following interview about heroes.

 

Who were your heroes when you were growing up?

Because I was reared in a Christian family for which church-attendance was both compulsory and regular, many of my boyhood heroes were Biblical characters like David, Joshua and others. At the same time, some of my other heroes came from the Saturday morning television programs and included Hopalong Cassidy and Roy Rogers. During my grade school years, my heroes became the legends of American History classes: George Washington, Thomas Payne, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, etc. I also greatly enjoyed the popular war movies of the 50s and grew up with great admiration for Sergeant York, Audie Murphy, John D. Bulkeley, Jimmy Doolittle and other heroes of the World Wars.

What is your opinion on today's youth replacing military leaders and respected politicians with pop culture "icons" as their heroes?

Heroes and legends are the gift of older generations to the younger. Children grow up admiring the people they learn about from their parents, their teachers, media and entertainment (movies). The "heroes" our children admire today, they admire because these are the same heroes or types of "heroes" admired by their parents.

As a society, we have failed to distinguish between celebrities and heroes. All too often, we use the term "hero" all too lightly. The highly-paid quarterback who throws the Super Bowl winning touchdown is "the hero of the game" in today's world. But he is no hero; he is an athlete who did his job very well. That can be admired and respected; and there is no shame in youth wishing to emulate such an athlete's success. The same could be said for celebrities who become role models for youth who want fame and fortune. There is nothing wrong with fame and/or fortune; these are basic tenets of the "American Dream" which reminds young and old alike that we live in the Land of Opportunity where you can rise above any situation to achieve your dreams.

In generations past, heroes and celebrities were often one and the same person. Jesse Owens was a great athlete AND an American hero. He was a hero, however, not because of what he did as an athlete on the track, but because of what he stood for as a person. Other great celebrities of past generations became heroes, in addition to being celebrities. Clark Gable flew in WWII bombers to film for recruiting movies and Jimmy Stewart left a Hollywood career at its zenith to serve in the Army Air Force in Europe. Rocky Blier was an admired gridiron celebrity that many young looked up to, admired and called a "hero". He did, in fact, become a hero, not because of what he did on the ball field, but because of his service in Vietnam and the inspirational way in which he struggled back after his severe wounds.

Sadly, the vast majority of our celebrities whether in sports or in entertainment, lack this second dimension of personal character and integrity-- which means despite what we call them as a society, they are NOT heroes, merely celebrities and/or (and not always good) role models.

The challenge then for us as a nation is to:

1. Learn to differentiate between heroes and celebrities and not ignore the important role filled by either. We need celebrities to remind us what can be achieved personally in this Land of Opportunity and fill young minds with hopes and dreams, but we also need heroes to remind us that there are some things in life more important than fame and fortune or the advancement of self. A true HERO, by my definition, is someone who SACRIFICES for the sake of others.

2. Older generations need to spend more time learning about our heroes and sharing their stories with our youth. Obviously, this means educators, entertainment industries, media and more. It is especially incumbent upon our political leaders to become aware of our heroes. There are fewer than 110 living Medal of Honor recipients, yet I would wager that the majority of the members of either House of Congress couldn't name even the one or two recipients that reside in their individual states. The single most important aspect, however, is parents. I grew up loving American heroes because of the many stories my father told me. Not only were the stories fascinating, but seeing the way my father felt about these great men and women gave me an indication as to how important they were.

3. We need to quit trying to destroy our heroes. As a society, we love a good success story because it inspires us and then we thrive on the scandal that brings the heroes back down to our level. In order to be a hero, one must be HUMAN. An heroic act is something a man or woman did that rises above the level of what we would expect: "Above and beyond the call of duty" if you will. The person who does that which is reasonably expected is not a hero. But the person who accomplishes that which we might otherwise think humanly impossible is certainly heroic. Thus, the prerequisite for being a hero is to be human. And every human also has failings. Look close enough at any hero and you will find their human faults--EVERY hero has them.

We destroy our heroes for any number of inane reasons. Revisionist history has sought to highlight the human failings of our Presidents, our moguls, our celebrities and even our military heroes. To what end? A Medal of Honor recipient sharing his story at the local VFW is lucky to get a two-line announcement in the local paper. But let him get charged with DUI driving home and it is front page news. All that does is give others the excuse to say, "See, he may be a hero, but he isn't any better than me!" The fact is, I've never met a TRUE hero who thought he or she was better than anyone else--most of them even shy away from the title "hero"--but, for some masochistic reason, we as a society like to bring down our heroes.

Perhaps one of the best examples of this is our political world. (Keep in mind, I am a life-long Republican who is so conservative, I think anybody to the Right of me is an extremist.) In 1991 when Vietnam War Medal of Honor Recipient Robert Kerrey ran for President, my party trashed him for "war crimes committed in Vietnam" and called for his Bronze Star to be taken away. Twelve years later, when Democratic Senator John Kerry ran for President, we turned around and trashed him for CLAIMING that "American soldiers committed war crimes in Vietnam." The fact is, both men served in Vietnam, both were awarded various medals by the U.S. Navy and decades after their service we have no right to go back and second guess the legitimacy of their awards or tear them down simply for political gain. I expect a higher standard of respect for our Veterans from ALL Americans and especially from the Republican Party which I have always felt tended to be more of the flag-waving, patriotic party akin to my own fierce patriotism and love of our military men and women. During the politics of that last decade-and-a-half we've seen the military service of Republicans like Dan Quayle and John McCain called into question by those who disagreed with them on political issues, as well as such Democrats as Robert Kerrey, Al Gore, Max Cleland and John Kerry (all four of whom served in Vietnam). Is it any wonder there are so few military veterans serving in Congress today? Where once military service was certainly a plus for a man seeking election--almost requisite--in today's political arena, a Veteran who opts to run for office will quickly find the nature of their service, even the legitimacy of medals they were awarded, called into question.

This is a problem on both sides of the political spectrum--"Win at any cost". But one side doing it does not make it right for the other party to repay in kind--for all that is accomplished is the belittlement of those men and women who have earned the title "hero"--whether we agree with them politically or not. Until we quit trashing our heroes as a society, we can hardly expect our children to embrace true heroes.

Gallop's annual "Values and Beliefs" poll released June 4th showed 82% "say the state of moral values in our country as a whole is growing worse." Do you believe this is related to America's lack of traditional heroic figures?

"Moral Decay" is the popular buzz-word of virtually EVERY generation in rejection to change. Growing up in the 50s, I certainly heard it. My mother forbade me to even listen to Elvis Presley's music. If Gallup had done a poll on "Values and Beliefs" in the "Roaring Twenties" I'll bet they'd have got an earful. It was certainly a concern during the 60s revolution.

Judging a generation is just like how we look at heroes. You can either focus on Ira Hayes as a brave Marine, doing his duty at Iwo Jima and proudly hoisting the flag, or as a troubled young man who drank himself to an early grave.

I tend to define morality not based upon Victorian values of what you DON'T do: "I don't smoke and I don't chew, and I don't go with the girls that do". I'm more concerned about what you are DOING while you are NOT DOING what you are NOT DOING. Until the 1960s our Nation was very largely isolationistic, hence the great reluctance until Pearl Harbor to involve ourselves in "Europe's War". With our increasing personal wealth and security, it became easy to focus on self and say that the rest of the world was not our problem. Much of that changed during the "moral decay" of the 60s as American Green Berets went around the world not simply to fight, but to help FREE THE OPPRESSED by also digging wells, planting fields, purifying water, tending medical needs and building schools. The Peace Corps established by President Kennedy spoke to the "new morality" of the 60s of the obligation to others, and not just other AMERICANS.

Morality is living by the Golden Rule. While we remain comfortable in the freest and most prosperous society in world history, priding ourselves on what we don't do (in terms of traditional sin), I have to remember the words of I John 3:17 "But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him."

Scripture further teaches us that "Unto whom much is given, of him shall be much required." This is not socialism, this is personal responsibility. We as a nation have been greatly blessed, and because of that blessing, of US is much required. After two centuries of largely isolationism, occasional colonialism, and certain evolution into the GREATEST nation not only in the world but in world history, only within the last few decades have we begun to realize more and more our responsibility to the rest of the world. Today, young American men and women are fighting half-way around the world, not for themselves or even for the direct sake of our own country, but on behalf of people who were liberated from one of the most evil regimes in history. Despite the problems with that war, what they are doing as individuals, and what we are doing as a nation, is admirable. Our young today are equally concerned about those downtrodden in Darfur and other regions of the world and in contrast to many previous generations, instead of looking away, are calling for action. This, in my thinking, is morality of the highest order.

Certainly we have seen a degeneration in attitudes towards marriage, family, the sanctity of life, and especially in a traditional respect for ones elders and for authority. This is a degeneration we can not blame upon the young, but upon ourselves. Our young will develop as we teach them, both by word and example.

What can we do to change today's media--where Paris Hilton going to jail makes TV headlines for a week, but brave soldiers earning the Medal of Honor are lucky to make their local paper?

We need to change our personal attitudes towards others. I'm no fan of Paris Hilton, but the fact is most of American society LOVES to watch her fall apart. Why? I believe it is largely jealousy. There are many in our society who have equally appalling life-style choices, most of whom we ignore because they are poor wretched creatures. But Paris Hilton has two things most of us will never have--fabulous wealth and fame. Watching her fall warms our hearts much as the scandal that engulfs a politician, sports celebrity, or hero makes us feel good.

Just last night I was watching "America's Got Talent" on TV for the first time. I gathered one of the judges is vying to become a Simon Cowell-wannabe through rudeness, thinly disguised as "entertainingly blatant honesty". What bothered me even more than this one judge's actions was the mean spirit of the audience, obviously encouraged by the show's producers. Most parents have suffered through a school play or recital in which their kids were involved, but no matter how bad, would be ready to fight if the audience treated them this way. But as a TV audience, we revel in the shaming and humiliation of a performer who is talented in their own mind only. And we can't blame the younger generation for this degeneration of our media--the Idol and other such programs are eagerly anticipated and widely watched (and thereby endorsed) by their parents and even their grandparents.

What can we do to help you spread the word about America's heroes?

That is probably the toughest question for me to answer. I've never thought of my work as being in any way some sort of crusade, but rather simply a passion to preserve the history of who we are as a nation by concentrating on the positive. Far more than getting help "spreading the word", I guess my primary hope is that people will learn about our heroes from the pages I have written, find in these heroes the inspiration needed to give them courage in their own lives, and come to emulate the deep respect for others that motivates a young man or woman to risk, and even give their own life, for others.

My column will be read mostly by conservative, often Republican, adults? As a father, former evangelic minister and soldier, what advice would you like to give to parents on raising patriotic, God-fearing children, who will be a credit to their country and their Creator?

My message to my party today would be to get back to the values we have always believed in as Republicans:

1. We are NOT afraid to say the word "God" or "Prayer" or to acknowledge that our society was founded upon Christian principles. While we may NOT be a Christian nation, we certainly can and should be a nation of Christians--as well as others of faith.

2. We believe LESS government is a better government, and that personal liberty cannot and should not be sacrificed for security. The 13 colonies that became our United States was born in a dangerous time, a time when King George promised our residents, "I can protect you, but in turn, I'll have to infringe upon your liberties, quarter my troops in your barns, levy taxes to pay for your protection and suspend the due process of law to protect you from insurrectionists." Living in a free society means we must sometimes live in a dangerous world. As Republicans, we have always believed personal liberty was worth the risk--knowing that absolute safety can only be guaranteed by one to whom we surrender our liberty.

3. We need to get away from the situational ethics that have so long been the mantra of the Democrats and that have more recently crept into our own Republican thinking. No matter what the Democrats do, two wrongs don't make a right. As John McCain says with respect to his refusal to repay terrorists with torture, "It's not about who THEY are, it's about who WE are."

4. We believe in FAMILY, Father, Mother and children, and that "blood is thicker than water". Even so, we should not fear that which is alien to us. Our society will not be destroyed because we showed love and tolerance towards those who do not share our values; our world has always survived those who were different. Making some accommodation and giving some degree of acceptance to those different from us will NOT destroy America if we--as family--accept the responsibility we have to TRAIN, not just TEACH our children.

5. We need to become a kinder, gentler society, not just by catch-phrase, but by sincere action. We need to esteem personal achievement followed by personal service, and refuse the first, if it is not followed by the latter. We also need to fully realize that giving a hand-up is NOT socialism, but a personal responsibility.

6. We need to honestly realize that once in a while a Democrat may have a good idea and not reject-out-of-hand the entire package because it is postulated by a Liberal. The term "Liberals" defines nearly half our country and, right or wrong, they comprise half of who we are as a nation.

Thank you, Doug. You and your wife Pam are an inspiration to us all.  

The above interview was first posted in May of 2007.

---

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.

Do Ask, Do Tell - U.S. Military: Medical Truths, More Reasons To Exclude Open Homosexuality From Military

Medical Logical That Cannot Be Denied by Donna Garner

Editor's Note:

If there were not enough reasons homosexuals should not be allowed to openly serve in the U.S. Armed Forces, the following column by Donna Garner will provide more food for thought. Garner, an activist and researcher, accumulated reams of information regarding the added risk homosexuality presents to those who practice this behavior. Do Ask, Do Tell / U.S. Military points to the fact these medical issues would be a factor which would play a role in combat readiness of America's military.

WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT, SOME OF THE INFORMATION BELOW MAY BE CONSIDERED NOT SUITABLE FOR CHILDREN

Should our country be moving as fast as we can to encourage homosexual behavior? Why or why not? Some states seem to want same-sex marriage and are passing all kinds of laws that will encourage even more people to participate in homosexual activities. The debate rages on.

However, there is one way to settle the whole issue. What are the medical consequences of homosexual behavior? Our society uses that same standard to make decisions about whether it is healthy to smoke, use drugs, take steroids, eat high-cholesterol foods, or saturate meals with sugars and fats. Why not use that same medical standard as a tool by which to decide whether our nation should encourage or discourage homosexual behavior?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) just released its latest data last week: HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, Volume 18: Cases of HIV Infection and AIDS in the United States and Dependent Areas, 2006:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2006report/default.htm

Only one logical conclusion could possibly be drawn from CDC’s report:

HIV/AIDS is still largely transmitted through the CHOSEN behaviors of male-to-male sex and/or drug use. These diseases are not caught from casual contact but are primarily spread by people who are making very bad choices that are sure to produce negative consequences not only for them but for society as a whole.

Table 17 – AIDS cases by age category, transmission category, and sex from beginning of epidemic through 2006: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2006report/table17.htm

84% of the total cumulative cases of male AIDS are spread by male-to-male sexual contact and/or drug use. Another 14% were involved in such risky behaviors that no single risk factor could be identified.

===============================================================

Table 18 – HIV infections by age category, transmission category, and sex (cumulative from beginning of epidemic through 2006 -- 45 states and 5 U. S. dependent areas with name-based HIV infection reporting): http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2006report/table18.htm

70% of the total cumulative cases of male HIV are spread by male-to-male sexual contact and/or drug use. Another 29% were involved in such risky behaviors that no single risk factor could be identified.

===============================================================

Table 19 – AIDS cases for male adults and adolescents by transmission category (cumulative through 2006 – U. S. and dependent areas): http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2006report/table19.htm

84% of the total cumulative cases of male AIDS are spread by male-to-male sexual contact and/or drug use. Another 14% were involved in such risky behaviors that no single risk factor could be identified.

==============================================================

Table 20 – HIV infections for male adults and adolescents by transmission category (cumulative through 2006 – 45 states and 5 U. S. dependent areas with name-based HIV infection reporting):

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2006report/table20.htm

70% of the total cumulative cases of male HIV are spread by male-to-male sexual contact and/or drug use. Another 29% were involved in such risky behaviors that no single risk factor could be identified.

===============================================================

Table 21 – AIDS cases for female adults and adolescents by transmission category (cumulative through 2006 – U. S. and dependent areas): http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2006report/table21.htm

52% of the total cumulative cases of female AIDS are spread through injection drug use, high-risk heterosexual sex with injection drug user, or high-risk heterosexual sex with bisexual male. Another 45% were involved in such risky behaviors that no single risk factor could be identified.

===============================================================

Table 22 – HIV infections for female adults and adolescents by transmission category (cumulative through 2006 – 45 states and 5 U. S. dependent areas with name-based HIV infection reporting): http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2006report/table22.htm

28% of the total cumulative cases of female HIV infection are spread through injection drug use, high-risk heterosexual sex with injection drug user, or high-risk heterosexual sex with bisexual male. Another 71% were involved in such risky behaviors that no single risk factor could be identified.

ARE CONDOMS THE ANSWER?

Are condoms the answer? They are portrayed both in the media and in the pop culture as the answer for homosexuals; but the CDC statistics indicate that even after spending millions of dollars to promote condom use among homosexuals, the STD transmission rates are soaring.

Under the best of conditions, condoms slip or break 1.6% to 3.6% of the time. Since homosexuals typically can have hundreds of sexual partners per year, their chances of contracting STD’s are greatly increased.

The National Institutes of Health has stated that condoms are effective 85% of the time against HIV/AIDS if used correctly and consistently. That leaves 15% of the time when condom users are open to the deadly diseases of HIV/AIDs.

Unfortunately, condoms are also not very effective against the discharge diseases (e.g., HPV, genital herpes, syphilis, and chancroid) because they are transmitted through skin-to-skin contact on the parts of the body that cannot be covered by the condom.

TEN STEPS TO CORRECT AND CONSISTENT CONDOM USE

How easy is it to use condoms correctly and consistently? http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00021321.htm

For condoms to be effective at all, participants must follow ten necessary steps. Is it likely that the average person will take the time to implement these ten steps while in a moment of passion?

(1) Carefully hold the condom to avoid damaging with fingernails, teeth, or sharp objects, (2) use adequate water-based lubrication (never use petroleum jelly, shortening, mineral oil, massage oils, body lotions, or cooking oil -- they weaken the latex), (3) carefully put on the condom after penis is erect and before any genital contact with partner, (4) ensure no air is trapped in tip of condom, (5) hold the condom firmly against base of penis during withdrawal and then prevent slippage by withdrawing penis while it is still erect, (6) store condoms in cool, dry place out of direct sunlight, (7) not use condoms after expiration date, (8) not use condoms if package is damaged or discolored, (9) use latex condoms and not natural-membrane, and (10) use condoms with each and every act of intercourse.

MEDICAL PROBLEMS CAUSED BY SEXUAL DEVIANCY

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd18.htm

Devvy Kidd has formulated a list of outcomes taken from the medical literature, indicating what sexual deviancy can bring to the participants:

(Anal) Douches, Lubricants: Allergic reactions, Rectal fatty tumors Active Fellatio: Physical abrasions, Oral gonorrhea, Herpes progenitalis I and II, Nongonococcal pharyngitis (Chlamydia and others), Oral condyloma acuminatum, Syphilis, Hepatitis B, Enteric diseases, Lymphogranuloma veneered, Granola inquinale, Chancroid Passive Fellatio: Herpes type 1 and 2, Nongonococcol urethritis (Chlamydia and others), Gonorrhea, Neisseria meningitidis. Anal Intercourse, Active: Nongonococcol urethritis, Escherichia coli, Gonorrhea, Hepatitis A, B, non-A/non-B, Herpes, Warts -molluscum and condyloma, Syphilis, Trichomoniasis, Epididymitis/prostatitis, Fungal infections, Lymphogranuloma venereum, Granuloma inguinale, Chancroid, Cytomegalovirus.

Anal Intercourse, Passive: Physical pretties, Rectal gonorrhea, Warts -condyloma and molluscum (rare), Nonspecific proctitis (Chlamydia and others), Herpes, Syphilis, Hepatitis B, Trichomoniasis, Corynebacterium, Lymphogranuloma venereum, Granuloma inguinale, Chancroid, Cytomegalovirus, Candidiasis. Analinction (dung-eating, "rimming"): Enteric diseases: Gay bowel syndrome (explained below) PLUS Escherichia coli and Helminthic parasites, Oral warts, Oral gonorrhea, Syphilis, Lymphogranuloma venereum, Granuloma inguinale, Chancroid. Fist/Finger Insertion, Passive: Internal scrapes, Anal sphincter tears, Perforations of the colon, Acute abdomen, having to wear a diaper. Toys/Apparatus: Allergic reactions, Friction dermatitis, Physical torsions, Varicoceles, Peyronie's disease, Fungal infections, Lost rectal objects, Testicular strangulation ("cock rings").

Gay Bowel Syndrome is a collection of bowel diseases which lead to dysfunction of the lower bowel tract and is prevalent throughout the "gay" community. GBS requires one wear a colostomy bag. Shigellosis is an acute bacteria infection like salmonellosis, it can lead to a diarrhea-induced dehydration death in infants and the elderly. Infected individuals [HIV] should never handle food, yet how many "gays" work in restaurants and handle food?

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.

Do Ask, Do Tell / U.S. Military To Launch Media Blitz vs. Obama Plan to Have Homosexuals Openly Serve In Military by Dan Gura

RFFM.org NEWS

 

CHICAGO, IL -- Do Ask, Do Tell / U.S. Military announced what founder Dan Zanoza is calling a political counterinsurgency movement to fight against homosexual activists.  Do Ask, Do Tell / U.S. Military is an organization formed to fight the effort by some which would lead to homosexuals openly serving in the United States Armed Forces.

 

"Hillary Clinton said she would strive to do away with 'Don't ask, don't tell' which was implemented by her husband and former President Bill Clinton during his first term in office," stated Zanoza.  "If Hillary planned to use our Armed Forces for a social experiment, which has nothing to do with the defense of our nation, Barack Obama will certainly go even further down this dangerous road."

 

Most former and current members of America's military believe Clinton's "Don't ask, don't tell" program has been a disaster.  Essentially, homosexuals are allowed to remain on active duty as long as they are not asked about their sexual orientation and they do not reveal their sexual orientation.

 

"It's not a secret when someone is having an affair, especially with a member of the same sex on our ship," said a U.S. Naval officer who could only speak under conditions of anonymity.  "The prohibition on homosexuals openly serving in the Navy is a joke and, in reality, there needs to be a hard and fast rule regarding this issue.  Gays openly serving in America's Armed Forces would be a disaster, no matter how politically correct it sounds."

 

Do Ask, Do Tell / U.S. Military will soon launch a media blitz to counter the obvious agenda of homosexual activists.

 

"If Obama is elected president, 'Don't ask, don't tell' will become a thing of the past," said Zanoza.  "But Obama will make a confusing policy even worse when he leads the effort to totally disregard the counsel of high-ranking military officials who see gays in the military as just one more problem that will hinder the defense of our country."

 

Do Ask, Do Tell / U.S. Military is expected to launch its media blitz shortly before the November election and, depending on its outcome, strategies will be developed to match whatever political realities exist at the time.

 

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.

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

Agenda-Driven Media Responsible For Giving Soldier False Impression Nation Does Not Support Troops

By DANIEL T. ZANOZA

From the Archives

Editor' note:  Though the situation in Iraq has shown dramatic improvement since the writing of this column in November of 2006 the premise still applies.  When the situation in Iraq was going badly, the dominant media in America seemed to be joyful in its reporting on that war.  The same media attention was given to our military's efforts in Afghanistan.  Since progress has been made in both nations, the fine work done by U.S. Armed Forces has been neglected for the most part by the media.  Recently, Josh (the soldier who was the topic of this column) has returned safely to America from his tour of duty in Afghanistan.  RFFM.org thanks Josh for his service and remembers those who have paid the ultimate price in the defense of liberty.

One of my saddest experiences working in the field of journalism occurred just a few short weeks ago. At that time, I had the opportunity to read a letter sent back home from an American soldier in Afghanistan.

During fifteen years of writing, I have delved into some unbelievably terrible stories, including the murder of entire families. In my life, I have come across individuals who have surrendered to their innermost dark side and reveled in the idea of doing so.

I have written about tragedies of the human spirit which would shake the mettle of the strongest among us. Yet when I read a letter from a soldier, who I will simply refer to as Josh, my heart sank; he is now serving his third tour of duty in Afghanistan.

Josh was sending an e-mail to a friend. Yet, unconsciously, I think he was sending a message to us all. Thankfully, this person was a good friend who cared enough about Josh and other servicemen to anonymously share his letter with the rest of us. His letter told of the perceived abandonment Josh and his fellow comrades in arms are feeling concerning their countrymen back home.

Josh believes he and his fellow soldiers, in a way, have been abandoned by us -- the American people -- when he writes, "If I were to go home to the United States and pick one random person and say that I just returned home from fighting a war in Afghanistan, what do you think their reaction would be? I am willing to bet their reaction would be something like this: 'We still have soldiers in Afghanistan?'"

I was taken aback by the letter -- which we must remember was not meant for my eyes or anyone's else -- other than his friend. However, somehow the letter prompted me to do something. I needed to let Josh know he was wrong. There is still tremendous support for him and his mission in Afghanistan. For that matter, I also believe Americans fervently stand by the men and women fighting in Iraq as well.

Many may be intentionally or unintentionally confusing support for the troops with support for the politics behind the mission. These are two distinctly different issues that are inexorably linked together. Sadly, it seems many of our fighting men and women may not be drawing a distinction between the two and, quite honestly, who could blame them? That is why I question those who say, "I support the troops, but I don't support the war." The perception this support has somehow waned is mostly due to an agenda driven by the dominant media.

Millions upon millions of Americans think about Josh and his fellow defenders of democracy every day. Across the nation, candles are lit in churches every morning for Josh and his cohorts. Multitudes begin each day with prayers for Josh's brothers and sisters who are in harms way, asking God to protect them and give peace of mind to their families. Hundreds of groups, some very large, others small, like Operation Care Package, do their best to let our Marines, sailors, soldiers and airmen know we care deeply about them and that we desire they return home safely. Volunteers, like Tina McCarty of Operation Care Packages [http://www.operationcarepackages.org/index.html] out of Tennessee, spend countless hours putting together, addressing and mailing parcels and providing other services which are meant to lift the spirits of our servicemen and women and her actions are repeated across the nation daily.

But Josh touches the heart of everyone when he writes, "In a span of 3 days, I saw 4 soldiers fight, and lose their lives in combat. A lot of people like to say that they were fighting for their country. While I agree with that, there is also more to it than that. People always seem to overlook the rest of that statement. These soldiers died so that their brothers next to them could live. At the time of their deaths they were not thinking that they are helping a nation fight terrorism, rather they died knowing that they were protecting the rest of us who fought beside them."

No one can understand the awful nature of war, except those who have experienced combat themselves. However, I do not believe Josh was being critical of those of us who haven't walked in his shoes. You can truly sense Josh understands these are the realities of war, the price our nation has paid for liberty over many generations.

Josh doesn't want Americans to experience his horror, but he does think the country needs to know more about the men and women who are paying the ultimate price in the defense of liberty.

Sadly, the mainstream media has used Josh and the dying comrades he talks about as convenient statistics to bolster one side of a political battle.

Critics proclaim, "I support our troops, but I don't support the war." No matter how one feels about the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, again, this is an impossible position to make legitimate. In essence, as our troop's blood runs into the desert's sands, in actuality this statement says, "I support you, but I don't support what you are doing." If this sounds like honest dissent, perhaps it is. If this also sounds like double-talk sprinkled with madness, you are closer to the mark. However, this is what Josh and 20,000 other American troops in Afghanistan are hearing.

Also, there has been little or no effort by the media to elaborate on the fruits of the labor of servicemen and women like Josh.

Today boys and girls sit in Kabul, Afghanistan classrooms, learning and laughing--like children should. Today some Afghani women attend institutions of higher learning when, just a few years ago, even thoughts about participating in such activities might have brought about sudden imprisonment or death. Truly, today a nation and its proud people celebrate their freedom -- though it might be incomplete or flawed -- in the eyes of some in the West.

When talking about being forgotten, I think Josh is referring to the positive things (like those I just mentioned) and the media's reluctance to report on them. Josh is also thinking about the smiles he sees on children's faces, not the horror he saw in his friend's eyes before his death. But Josh's recollection of these things is now a part of who he is, the same way the texture of the sand on the beaches of Normandy will be forever remembered by those who clung to those precious grains of sand for life, a little over 60 years ago; the same way the mind-numbing cold will always be with the Marines who fought and survived the battle of the Chosen Reservoir on the Korean peninsula; and the men who will never forget the sights, smells and sounds of Viet Nam when they fought to defend Kaison during the Tet offensive in 1968. These were, and are, the horrors of war.

But the school children I spoke of in this essay and Josh's role to enable them to learn are also stories that need to be told and remembered. Most important, Josh needs to know most Americans marvel at his bravery. They see him as an example of America's best. Contrary to the beliefs of some, they do not see Josh and his band of brothers as wasted pawns being used in political gamesmanship. Only the most cynical among us can look at Josh and his comrades in that manner.

Josh, you are not alone. Josh, you are not forgotten. Americans long for you to understand they see you as a hero. They see men and women, like yourself, as the best our country has to offer, contrary to some politicians who, sadly, see you as something far less. Josh, you and your brethren inhabit a special place in the hearts and minds of true Americans who do not look to one's political affiliation before giving you their unqualified and unwavering support.

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.

In Honor Of Our Fallen On Memorial Day: Medal Of Honor Winners

RFFM.org Also Honors All Who Paid the Ultimate Price to Defend Our Freedom

An Interview With Doug Sterner, Creator of Home of Heroes web site

Interview by Dan Gura, Contributing Editor

Gura writes, "Today I offer something not on the lighter side, but one which will make you stand a little straighter, a little prouder to be an American." 

Do you know who Jason L. Dunham is? How about Paul Ray Smith? You should because they are two of America’s finest sons; they are heroes in the War on Terror.

These days the press doesn’t seem to care very much about conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty. No, they’re too busy whining every time some two bit terrorist thug sniffles, or mugging over Paris Hilton’s latest foibles to tell you about these real heroes. So I’ll tell you why you should know these two men.

Corporal Dunham, U.S. Marine Corps, received the Medal of Honor for his actions on April 14, 2004 in Karabilah, Iraq after an insurgent released a hand grenade. His citation reads, “Aware of the immediate danger and without hesitation, Corporal Dunham covered the grenade with his helmet and body, bearing the brunt of the explosion and shielding his Marines from the blast. In an ultimate and selfless act of bravery in which he was mortally wounded, he saved the lives of at least two fellow Marines.”

Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith, U.S. Army, received the Medal of Honor for his actions on April 4, 2003 near Baghdad International Airport. His citation reads…”his Task Force was violently attacked by a company sized enemy force…As the fight developed Sergeant First Class Smith braved hostile enemy fire to personally engage the enemy with hand grenades and anti-tank weapons and organized the evacuation of three wounded soldiers…In total disregard for his own life, he maintained his exposed position in order to engage the attacking enemy force. During this action, he was mortally wounded.”

Want to learn more about real heroes? There is a most incredible web site, www.homeofheroes.com, which I encourage everyone to visit--often. But be forewarned that your eyes will tear up as you read the stories of the 3,457 individual acts of heroism which have earned the Medal of Honor. You can download the individual citations and read with awe the true stories of extraordinary heroism thanks to a Vietnam veteran and winner of two Bronze Star Medals, Doug Sterner, U.S. Army, retired (photo). 

Some amazing facts: Doug Sterner's website is huge—3.5 gigabytes in size—and so extensive that it would take 150,000 sheets of paper (that’s 30 cases!) to print it all. Every month more than ½ million different visitors visit the website. The site includes medal Citations listed by war, branch of service and by state. It also contains an impressive U.S. History section, presidential inaugural addresses, downloadable books and enough patriotic resources to guarantee your child an A+ on a term paper about real heroes.

Webmaster Sterner, "considered the most knowledgeable historian of America’s highest award for valor, the Medal of Honor," was kind enough to grant me the following interview about heroes.

Who were your heroes when you were growing up?

Because I was reared in a Christian family for which church-attendance was both compulsory and regular, many of my boyhood heroes were Biblical characters like David, Joshua and others. At the same time, some of my other heroes came from the Saturday morning television programs and included Hopalong Cassidy and Roy Rogers. During my grade school years, my heroes became the legends of American History classes: George Washington, Thomas Payne, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, etc. I also greatly enjoyed the popular war movies of the 50s and grew up with great admiration for Sergeant York, Audie Murphy, John D. Bulkeley, Jimmy Doolittle and other heroes of the World Wars.

What is your opinion on today's youth replacing military leaders and respected politicians with pop culture "icons" as their heroes?

Heroes and legends are the gift of older generations to the younger. Children grow up admiring the people they learn about from their parents, their teachers, media and entertainment (movies). The "heroes" our children admire today, they admire because these are the same heroes or types of "heroes" admired by their parents.

As a society, we have failed to distinguish between celebrities and heroes. All too often, we use the term "hero" all too lightly. The highly-paid quarterback who throws the Super Bowl winning touchdown is "the hero of the game" in today's world. But he is no hero; he is an athlete who did his job very well. That can be admired and respected; and there is no shame in youth wishing to emulate such an athlete's success. The same could be said for celebrities who become role models for youth who want fame and fortune. There is nothing wrong with fame and/or fortune; these are basic tenets of the "American Dream" which reminds young and old alike that we live in the Land of Opportunity where you can rise above any situation to achieve your dreams.

In generations past, heroes and celebrities were often one and the same person. Jesse Owens was a great athlete AND an American hero. He was a hero, however, not because of what he did as an athlete on the track, but because of what he stood for as a person. Other great celebrities of past generations became heroes, in addition to being celebrities. Clark Gable flew in WWII bombers to film for recruiting movies and Jimmy Stewart left a Hollywood career at its zenith to serve in the Army Air Force in Europe. Rocky Blier was an admired gridiron celebrity that many young looked up to, admired and called a "hero". He did, in fact, become a hero, not because of what he did on the ball field, but because of his service in Vietnam and the inspirational way in which he struggled back after his severe wounds.

Sadly, the vast majority of our celebrities whether in sports or in entertainment, lack this second dimension of personal character and integrity-- which means despite what we call them as a society, they are NOT heroes, merely celebrities and/or (and not always good) role models.

The challenge then for us as a nation is to:

1. Learn to differentiate between heroes and celebrities and not ignore the important role filled by either. We need celebrities to remind us what can be achieved personally in this Land of Opportunity and fill young minds with hopes and dreams, but we also need heroes to remind us that there are some things in life more important than fame and fortune or the advancement of self. A true HERO, by my definition, is someone who SACRIFICES for the sake of others.

2. Older generations need to spend more time learning about our heroes and sharing their stories with our youth. Obviously, this means educators, entertainment industries, media and more. It is especially incumbent upon our political leaders to become aware of our heroes. There are fewer than 110 living Medal of Honor recipients, yet I would wager that the majority of the members of either House of Congress couldn't name even the one or two recipients that reside in their individual states. The single most important aspect, however, is parents. I grew up loving American heroes because of the many stories my father told me. Not only were the stories fascinating, but seeing the way my father felt about these great men and women gave me an indication as to how important they were.

3. We need to quit trying to destroy our heroes. As a society, we love a good success story because it inspires us and then we thrive on the scandal that brings the heroes back down to our level. In order to be a hero, one must be HUMAN. An heroic act is something a man or woman did that rises above the level of what we would expect: "Above and beyond the call of duty" if you will. The person who does that which is reasonably expected is not a hero. But the person who accomplishes that which we might otherwise think humanly impossible is certainly heroic. Thus, the prerequisite for being a hero is to be human. And every human also has failings. Look close enough at any hero and you will find their human faults--EVERY hero has them.

We destroy our heroes for any number of inane reasons. Revisionist history has sought to highlight the human failings of our Presidents, our moguls, our celebrities and even our military heroes. To what end? A Medal of Honor recipient sharing his story at the local VFW is lucky to get a two-line announcement in the local paper. But let him get charged with DUI driving home and it is front page news. All that does is give others the excuse to say, "See, he may be a hero, but he isn't any better than me!" The fact is, I've never met a TRUE hero who thought he or she was better than anyone else--most of them even shy away from the title "hero"--but, for some masochistic reason, we as a society like to bring down our heroes.

Perhaps one of the best examples of this is our political world. (Keep in mind, I am a life-long Republican who is so conservative, I think anybody to the Right of me is an extremist.) In 1991 when Vietnam War Medal of Honor Recipient Robert Kerrey ran for President, my party trashed him for "war crimes committed in Vietnam" and called for his Bronze Star to be taken away. Twelve years later, when Democratic Senator John Kerry ran for President, we turned around and trashed him for CLAIMING that "American soldiers committed war crimes in Vietnam." The fact is, both men served in Vietnam, both were awarded various medals by the U.S. Navy and decades after their service we have no right to go back and second guess the legitimacy of their awards or tear them down simply for political gain. I expect a higher standard of respect for our Veterans from ALL Americans and especially from the Republican Party which I have always felt tended to be more of the flag-waving, patriotic party akin to my own fierce patriotism and love of our military men and women. During the politics of that last decade-and-a-half we've seen the military service of Republicans like Dan Quayle and John McCain called into question by those who disagreed with them on political issues, as well as such Democrats as Robert Kerrey, Al Gore, Max Cleland and John Kerry (all four of whom served in Vietnam). Is it any wonder there are so few military veterans serving in Congress today? Where once military service was certainly a plus for a man seeking election--almost requisite--in today's political arena, a Veteran who opts to run for office will quickly find the nature of their service, even the legitimacy of medals they were awarded, called into question.

This is a problem on both sides of the political spectrum--"Win at any cost". But one side doing it does not make it right for the other party to repay in kind--for all that is accomplished is the belittlement of those men and women who have earned the title "hero"--whether we agree with them politically or not. Until we quit trashing our heroes as a society, we can hardly expect our children to embrace true heroes.

Gallop's annual "Values and Beliefs" poll released June 4th showed 82% "say the state of moral values in our country as a whole is growing worse." Do you believe this is related to America's lack of traditional heroic figures?

"Moral Decay" is the popular buzz-word of virtually EVERY generation in rejection to change. Growing up in the 50s, I certainly heard it. My mother forbade me to even listen to Elvis Presley's music. If Gallup had done a poll on "Values and Beliefs" in the "Roaring Twenties" I'll bet they'd have got an earful. It was certainly a concern during the 60s revolution.

Judging a generation is just like how we look at heroes. You can either focus on Ira Hayes as a brave Marine, doing his duty at Iwo Jima and proudly hoisting the flag, or as a troubled young man who drank himself to an early grave.

I tend to define morality not based upon Victorian values of what you DON'T do: "I don't smoke and I don't chew, and I don't go with the girls that do". I'm more concerned about what you are DOING while you are NOT DOING what you are NOT DOING. Until the 1960s our Nation was very largely isolationistic, hence the great reluctance until Pearl Harbor to involve ourselves in "Europe's War". With our increasing personal wealth and security, it became easy to focus on self and say that the rest of the world was not our problem. Much of that changed during the "moral decay" of the 60s as American Green Berets went around the world not simply to fight, but to help FREE THE OPPRESSED by also digging wells, planting fields, purifying water, tending medical needs and building schools. The Peace Corps established by President Kennedy spoke to the "new morality" of the 60s of the obligation to others, and not just other AMERICANS.

Morality is living by the Golden Rule. While we remain comfortable in the freest and most prosperous society in world history, priding ourselves on what we don't do (in terms of traditional sin), I have to remember the words of I John 3:17 "But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him."

Scripture further teaches us that "Unto whom much is given, of him shall be much required." This is not socialism, this is personal responsibility. We as a nation have been greatly blessed, and because of that blessing, of US is much required. After two centuries of largely isolationism, occasional colonialism, and certain evolution into the GREATEST nation not only in the world but in world history, only within the last few decades have we begun to realize more and more our responsibility to the rest of the world. Today, young American men and women are fighting half-way around the world, not for themselves or even for the direct sake of our own country, but on behalf of people who were liberated from one of the most evil regimes in history. Despite the problems with that war, what they are doing as individuals, and what we are doing as a nation, is admirable. Our young today are equally concerned about those downtrodden in Darfur and other regions of the world and in contrast to many previous generations, instead of looking away, are calling for action. This, in my thinking, is morality of the highest order.

Certainly we have seen a degeneration in attitudes towards marriage, family, the sanctity of life, and especially in a traditional respect for ones elders and for authority. This is a degeneration we can not blame upon the young, but upon ourselves. Our young will develop as we teach them, both by word and example.

What can we do to change today's media--where Paris Hilton going to jail makes TV headlines for a week, but brave soldiers earning the Medal of Honor are lucky to make their local paper?

We need to change our personal attitudes towards others. I'm no fan of Paris Hilton, but the fact is most of American society LOVES to watch her fall apart. Why? I believe it is largely jealousy. There are many in our society who have equally appalling life-style choices, most of whom we ignore because they are poor wretched creatures. But Paris Hilton has two things most of us will never have--fabulous wealth and fame. Watching her fall warms our hearts much as the scandal that engulfs a politician, sports celebrity, or hero makes us feel good.

Just last night I was watching "America's Got Talent" on TV for the first time. I gathered one of the judges is vying to become a Simon Cowell-wannabe through rudeness, thinly disguised as "entertainingly blatant honesty". What bothered me even more than this one judge's actions was the mean spirit of the audience, obviously encouraged by the show's producers. Most parents have suffered through a school play or recital in which their kids were involved, but no matter how bad, would be ready to fight if the audience treated them this way. But as a TV audience, we revel in the shaming and humiliation of a performer who is talented in their own mind only. And we can't blame the younger generation for this degeneration of our media--the Idol and other such programs are eagerly anticipated and widely watched (and thereby endorsed) by their parents and even their grandparents.

What can we do to help you spread the word about America's heroes?

That is probably the toughest question for me to answer. I've never thought of my work as being in any way some sort of crusade, but rather simply a passion to preserve the history of who we are as a nation by concentrating on the positive. Far more than getting help "spreading the word", I guess my primary hope is that people will learn about our heroes from the pages I have written, find in these heroes the inspiration needed to give them courage in their own lives, and come to emulate the deep respect for others that motivates a young man or woman to risk, and even give their own life, for others.

My column will be read mostly by conservative, often Republican, adults? As a father, former evangelic minister and soldier, what advice would you like to give to parents on raising patriotic, God-fearing children, who will be a credit to their country and their Creator?

My message to my party today would be to get back to the values we have always believed in as Republicans:

1. We are NOT afraid to say the word "God" or "Prayer" or to acknowledge that our society was founded upon Christian principles. While we may NOT be a Christian nation, we certainly can and should be a nation of Christians--as well as others of faith.

2. We believe LESS government is a better government, and that personal liberty cannot and should not be sacrificed for security. The 13 colonies that became our United States was born in a dangerous time, a time when King George promised our residents, "I can protect you, but in turn, I'll have to infringe upon your liberties, quarter my troops in your barns, levy taxes to pay for your protection and suspend the due process of law to protect you from insurrectionists." Living in a free society means we must sometimes live in a dangerous world. As Republicans, we have always believed personal liberty was worth the risk--knowing that absolute safety can only be guaranteed by one to whom we surrender our liberty.

3. We need to get away from the situational ethics that have so long been the mantra of the Democrats and that have more recently crept into our own Republican thinking. No matter what the Democrats do, two wrongs don't make a right. As John McCain says with respect to his refusal to repay terrorists with torture, "It's not about who THEY are, it's about who WE are."

4. We believe in FAMILY, Father, Mother and children, and that "blood is thicker than water". Even so, we should not fear that which is alien to us. Our society will not be destroyed because we showed love and tolerance towards those who do not share our values; our world has always survived those who were different. Making some accommodation and giving some degree of acceptance to those different from us will NOT destroy America if we--as family--accept the responsibility we have to TRAIN, not just TEACH our children.

5. We need to become a kinder, gentler society, not just by catch-phrase, but by sincere action. We need to esteem personal achievement followed by personal service, and refuse the first, if it is not followed by the latter. We also need to fully realize that giving a hand-up is NOT socialism, but a personal responsibility.

6. We need to honestly realize that once in a while a Democrat may have a good idea and not reject-out-of-hand the entire package because it is postulated by a Liberal. The term "Liberals" defines nearly half our country and, right or wrong, they comprise half of who we are as a nation.

Thank you, Doug. You and your wife Pam are an inspiration to us all. 

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.

Minnesota Rep. Ellison, An Obama Ally, May Be Jeopardizing U.S. Security For The Sake Of Islam

by Rev. Lainie Dowell

How much information is too much information when a nation is at war to publicly disclose about our on-going attempts to achieve a resolute victory over terrorists?
 
Congressman Keith Ellison, a relatively unknown figure from Minneapolis, Minnesota, was elected to the U.S. Congress and took office January 4, 2007.  Ellison is a close friend and political confidante of Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.

Ellison lays claim to being the first African-American from his state and the first Muslim to be seated in Congress.  He was accepted by Americans, but he has not yet accepted America as his nation.  Nevertheless, when anybody raises questions about his loyalty to America, Ellison is quick to label his critics as being bent on smearing his religion.  But what about the man?
 
Every American has the right, the obligation and, indeed, the duty to scrutinize anyone who sits so close to the secrets that keep America safe without their being labeled as bigots.  All because it is fashionable, it is not the American way to stifle debate.
 
When Ellison says, on the one hand, that he accepts his duty to God and country, we have to wonder which God and which country.  Ellison created a controversy when he insisted upon being sworn in to Congress by placing his hand on the Koran.  That's fine.  However, his close affiliation with Minister Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam brings into question his loyalties.  This should be a legitimate concern for all Americans.  Ellison also has a known history of working with CAIR, [Council on American-Islamic Relations] a covert organization with a substantial record indicating the group launders terrorist's money, resulting in members being deported or arrested with some receiving jail sentences.
 
Ellison is known to have been--and still is--unapologetically committed to the cause of Islam.  Radical Islam's stated purpose is to subvert the American form of government and its Judeo-Christian values and bring in its stead, an Islamic nation to America.  The largest mosque in Northern America is located in Dearborn, Michigan, which is the birth state of Ellison and where he lived before taking up residence with his family in Minnesota.
 
Ellison is a spokesman for and advocate of the Muslim move in America to increase their participation in the political arena by offering Islamic groups' political training.  Their purpose is not to uphold the Constitution of the U.S. and defend; in fact, their intent is to discard it and replace it with their own form of Sharia law.
 
Even though Ellison is now serving as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Ellison has failed to understand how protective Americans are of this nation's history and purpose.  Many voices have been raised against his taking office and have been ignored by the mainstream media, because of political correctness surrounding the Islamic question, which is not totally the issue.
 
Those voices were correct, when you stop to consider that Ellison has had no compunction of posting on his congressional website, for all to see, the deliberations concerning whether or not the U.S. military will be pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan, the projected timetables of deployment, the funding and the total lack of support by the Democrats and a few Republicans for the war against terror.  Anybody, especially terrorists, would only have to click a mouse to gain access to all that protects America from its enemies who are waiting and watching for their turn to strike.  And, while those enemies are on Ellison's Congressional web site, they can read the map of Iraq posted there, which pinpoints where our Armed Forces are stationed. 
 
Congressman Ellison's web site url:
http://ellison.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=32
 
I think it's important to note Ellison has placed that map of Iraq on his Congressional site along with his ongoing attempts to get the troops "redeployed" and/or pulled out of Iraq and the region.  Along with that information, the map shows key points in the country.  Many of those identified places have American and coalition military posted there.  Along with what terrorists already know, any detail they gleaned, particularly from a congressman, would be enough to get them to thinking how easy it would be to gain access to troop positions.  Ellison should know it and all in leadership must know that.
 
Because of Ellison's stated Muslim position, we are right to be suspicious and question his actions in that regard.
 
Today's technological and scientific advances have all but obliterated national and international borders.  And the World War II slogan, "Loose lips sink ships," should be replaced by reminders for Americans to "Beware of what you post on the Internet."
 
Our national security, individual peace and societal lifestyle are systematically being weakened from within.  We are being undermined as a nation, by calls for much more defense disclosures--mainly from individuals and organizations which make no secret of their desire to see America's downfall, period.
 
Long before September 11, 2001, we had been given more than sufficient evidence that our nation was being watched by detractors from near and afar.  Nevertheless, the nation went about its business of making laws and arguing about who should lead the next administration, Democrats or Republicans.
 
Meanwhile, we witnessed the on-going destruction of American life and liberty.  We watched as families mourned in public because of the vicious, senseless and inexplicable killing of innocent citizens.  We recall the many promises of former President Bill Clinton to apprehend the murderers.  Yet, they remained free and Americans continued to be vulnerable to their mad plots against us.
 
Monuments were constructed to commemorate victims of the various attacks and the administration changed hands.  America slept in relative peace until that fateful date, September 11, 2001.  President George W. Bush, the new leader, was in office only a short while when this disaster occurred, but he took the position America was no longer going to allow another attack without reprisal.  And the nation joined with him, to affirm its patriotic resolve to secure not only this nation, but also the world's stage.  The "War Against Terror" was on and our brave military men and women voluntarily stepped up to the task.
 
Why hasn't the Congressional leadership followed suit?  There was a shift in leadership which came about because Democrats promised to bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan or redeploy them in nations far from harm's way.
 
Wake up, Congress and Homeland Security!  American citizens are calling on you to stand up and protect us at home and abroad from terrorists without and within, but no one seems to be home.

Rev. Lainie Dowell, Five-Fold Minister
Contact:  revldowell-clergywomen@erols.com
Advocacy url:  http://www.clergywomen.org/dowell_sundaysun.html

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

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

Heroes: Interview of Doug Sterner, creator of Home of Heroes web site, which commemorates Medal of Honor winners

HEROES by Dan Gura

From the Archives -- June 17, 2007

Do you know who Jason L. Dunham is? How about Paul Ray Smith? You should because they are two of America’s finest sons; they are heroes in the War on Terror.

These days the press doesn’t seem to care very much about conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty. No, they’re too busy whining every time some two bit terrorist thug sniffles, or mugging over Paris Hilton’s latest foibles to tell you about these real heroes. So I’ll tell you why you should know these two men.

Corporal Dunham, U.S. Marine Corps, received the Medal of Honor for his actions on April 14, 2004 in Karabilah, Iraq after an insurgent released a hand grenade. His citation reads, “Aware of the immediate danger and without hesitation, Corporal Dunham covered the grenade with his helmet and body, bearing the brunt of the explosion and shielding his Marines from the blast. In an ultimate and selfless act of bravery in which he was mortally wounded, he saved the lives of at least two fellow Marines.”

Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith, U.S. Army, received the Medal of Honor for his actions on April 4, 2003 near Baghdad International Airport. His citation reads…”his Task Force was violently attacked by a company sized enemy force…As the fight developed Sergeant First Class Smith braved hostile enemy fire to personally engage the enemy with hand grenades and anti-tank weapons and organized the evacuation of three wounded soldiers…In total disregard for his own life, he maintained his exposed position in order to engage the attacking enemy force. During this action, he was mortally wounded.”

Want to learn more about real heroes? There is a most incredible web site, www.homeofheroes.com, which I encourage everyone to visit--often. But be forewarned that your eyes will tear up as you read the stories of the 3,457 individual acts of heroism which have earned the Medal of Honor. You can download the individual citations and read with awe the true stories of extraordinary heroism thanks to a Vietnam veteran and winner of two Bronze Star Medals, Doug Sterner, U.S. Army, retired [photo below].

Some amazing facts: Doug Sterner's website is huge—3.5 gigabytes in size—and so extensive that it would take 150,000 sheets of paper (that’s 30 cases!) to print it all. Every month more than ½ million different visitors visit the website. The site includes medal Citations listed by war, branch of service and by state. It also contains an impressive U.S. History section, presidential inaugural addresses, downloadable books and enough patriotic resources to guarantee your child an A+ on a term paper about real heroes.

Webmaster Sterner, "considered the most knowledgeable historian of America’s highest award for valor, the Medal of Honor," was kind enough to grant me the following interview about heroes.

Dan Gura interview with Doug Sterner:

Who were your heroes when you were growing up?

Because I was reared in a Christian family for which church-attendance was both compulsory and regular, many of my boyhood heroes were Biblical characters like David, Joshua and others. At the same time, some of my other heroes came from the Saturday morning television programs and included Hopalong Cassidy and Roy Rogers. During my grade school years, my heroes became the legends of American History classes: George Washington, Thomas Payne, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, etc. I also greatly enjoyed the popular war movies of the 50s and grew up with great admiration for Sergeant York, Audie Murphy, John D. Bulkeley, Jimmy Doolittle and other heroes of the World Wars.

What is your opinion on today's youth replacing military leaders and respected politicians with pop culture "icons" as their heroes?

Heroes and legends are the gift of older generations to the younger. Children grow up admiring the people they learn about from their parents, their teachers, media and entertainment (movies). The "heroes" our children admire today, they admire because these are the same heroes or types of "heroes" admired by their parents.

As a society, we have failed to distinguish between celebrities and heroes. All too often, we use the term "hero" all too lightly. The highly-paid quarterback who throws the Super Bowl winning touchdown is "the hero of the game" in today's world. But he is no hero; he is an athlete who did his job very well. That can be admired and respected; and there is no shame in youth wishing to emulate such an athlete's success. The same could be said for celebrities who become role models for youth who want fame and fortune. There is nothing wrong with fame and/or fortune; these are basic tenets of the "American Dream" which reminds young and old alike that we live in the Land of Opportunity where you can rise above any situation to achieve your dreams.

In generations past, heroes and celebrities were often one and the same person. Jesse Owens was a great athlete AND an American hero. He was a hero, however, not because of what he did as an athlete on the track, but because of what he stood for as a person. Other great celebrities of past generations became heroes, in addition to being celebrities. Clark Gable flew in WWII bombers to film for recruiting movies and Jimmy Stewart left a Hollywood career at its zenith to serve in the Army Air Force in Europe. Rocky Blier was an admired gridiron celebrity that many young looked up to, admired and called a "hero". He did, in fact, become a hero, not because of what he did on the ball field, but because of his service in Vietnam and the inspirational way in which he struggled back after his severe wounds.

Sadly, the vast majority of our celebrities whether in sports or in entertainment, lack this second dimension of personal character and integrity-- which means despite what we call them as a society, they are NOT heroes, merely celebrities and/or (and not always good) role models.

The challenge then for us as a nation is to:

1. Learn to differentiate between heroes and celebrities and not ignore the important role filled by either. We need celebrities to remind us what can be achieved personally in this Land of Opportunity and fill young minds with hopes and dreams, but we also need heroes to remind us that there are some things in life more important than fame and fortune or the advancement of self. A true HERO, by my definition, is someone who SACRIFICES for the sake of others.

2. Older generations need to spend more time learning about our heroes and sharing their stories with our youth. Obviously, this means educators, entertainment industries, media and more. It is especially incumbent upon our political leaders to become aware of our heroes. There are fewer than 110 living Medal of Honor recipients, yet I would wager that the majority of the members of either House of Congress couldn't name even the one or two recipients that reside in their individual states. The single most important aspect, however, is parents. I grew up loving American heroes because of the many stories my father told me. Not only were the stories fascinating, but seeing the way my father felt about these great men and women gave me an indication as to how important they were.

3. We need to quit trying to destroy our heroes. As a society, we love a good success story because it inspires us and then we thrive on the scandal that brings the heroes back down to our level. In order to be a hero, one must be HUMAN. An heroic act is something a man or woman did that rises above the level of what we would expect: "Above and beyond the call of duty" if you will. The person who does that which is reasonably expected is not a hero. But the person who accomplishes that which we might otherwise think humanly impossible is certainly heroic. Thus, the prerequisite for being a hero is to be human. And every human also has failings. Look close enough at any hero and you will find their human faults--EVERY hero has them.

We destroy our heroes for any number of inane reasons. Revisionist history has sought to highlight the human failings of our Presidents, our moguls, our celebrities and even our military heroes. To what end? A Medal of Honor recipient sharing his story at the local VFW is lucky to get a two-line announcement in the local paper. But let him get charged with DUI driving home and it is front page news. All that does is give others the excuse to say, "See, he may be a hero, but he isn't any better than me!" The fact is, I've never met a TRUE hero who thought he or she was better than anyone else--most of them even shy away from the title "hero"--but, for some masochistic reason, we as a society like to bring down our heroes.

Perhaps one of the best examples of this is our political world. (Keep in mind, I am a life-long Republican who is so conservative, I think anybody to the Right of me is an extremist.) In 1991 when Vietnam War Medal of Honor Recipient Robert Kerrey ran for President, my party trashed him for "war crimes committed in Vietnam" and called for his Bronze Star to be taken away. Twelve years later, when Democratic Senator John Kerry ran for President, we turned around and trashed him for CLAIMING that "American soldiers committed war crimes in Vietnam." The fact is, both men served in Vietnam, both were awarded various medals by the U.S. Navy and decades after their service we have no right to go back and second guess the legitimacy of their awards or tear them down simply for political gain. I expect a higher standard of respect for our Veterans from ALL Americans and especially from the Republican Party which I have always felt tended to be more of the flag-waving, patriotic party akin to my own fierce patriotism and love of our military men and women. During the politics of that last decade-and-a-half we've seen the military service of Republicans like Dan Quayle and John McCain called into question by those who disagreed with them on political issues, as well as such Democrats as Robert Kerrey, Al Gore, Max Cleland and John Kerry (all four of whom served in Vietnam). Is it any wonder there are so few military veterans serving in Congress today? Where once military service was certainly a plus for a man seeking election--almost requisite--in today's political arena, a Veteran who opts to run for office will quickly find the nature of their service, even the legitimacy of medals they were awarded, called into question.

This is a problem on both sides of the political spectrum--"Win at any cost". But one side doing it does not make it right for the other party to repay in kind--for all that is accomplished is the belittlement of those men and women who have earned the title "hero"--whether we agree with them politically or not. Until we quit trashing our heroes as a society, we can hardly expect our children to embrace true heroes.

Gallop's annual "Values and Beliefs" poll released June 4th showed 82% "say the state of moral values in our country as a whole is growing worse." Do you believe this is related to America's lack of traditional heroic figures?

"Moral Decay" is the popular buzz-word of virtually EVERY generation in rejection to change. Growing up in the 50s, I certainly heard it. My mother forbade me to even listen to Elvis Presley's music. If Gallup had done a poll on "Values and Beliefs" in the "Roaring Twenties" I'll bet they'd have got an earful. It was certainly a concern during the 60s revolution.

Judging a generation is just like how we look at heroes. You can either focus on Ira Hayes as a brave Marine, doing his duty at Iwo Jima and proudly hoisting the flag, or as a troubled young man who drank himself to an early grave.

I tend to define morality not based upon Victorian values of what you DON'T do: "I don't smoke and I don't chew, and I don't go with the girls that do". I'm more concerned about what you are DOING while you are NOT DOING what you are NOT DOING. Until the 1960s our Nation was very largely isolationistic, hence the great reluctance until Pearl Harbor to involve ourselves in "Europe's War". With our increasing personal wealth and security, it became easy to focus on self and say that the rest of the world was not our problem. Much of that changed during the "moral decay" of the 60s as American Green Berets went around the world not simply to fight, but to help FREE THE OPPRESSED by also digging wells, planting fields, purifying water, tending medical needs and building schools. The Peace Corps established by President Kennedy spoke to the "new morality" of the 60s of the obligation to others, and not just other AMERICANS.

Morality is living by the Golden Rule. While we remain comfortable in the freest and most prosperous society in world history, priding ourselves on what we don't do (in terms of traditional sin), I have to remember the words of I John 3:17 "But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him."

Scripture further teaches us that "Unto whom much is given, of him shall be much required." This is not socialism, this is personal responsibility. We as a nation have been greatly blessed, and because of that blessing, of US is much required. After two centuries of largely isolationism, occasional colonialism, and certain evolution into the GREATEST nation not only in the world but in world history, only within the last few decades have we begun to realize more and more our responsibility to the rest of the world. Today, young American men and women are fighting half-way around the world, not for themselves or even for the direct sake of our own country, but on behalf of people who were liberated from one of the most evil regimes in history. Despite the problems with that war, what they are doing as individuals, and what we are doing as a nation, is admirable. Our young today are equally concerned about those downtrodden in Darfur and other regions of the world and in contrast to many previous generations, instead of looking away, are calling for action. This, in my thinking, is morality of the highest order.

Certainly we have seen a degeneration in attitudes towards marriage, family, the sanctity of life, and especially in a traditional respect for ones elders and for authority. This is a degeneration we can not blame upon the young, but upon ourselves. Our young will develop as we teach them, both by word and example.

What can we do to change today's media--where Paris Hilton going to jail makes TV headlines for a week, but brave soldiers earning the Medal of Honor are lucky to make their local paper?

We need to change our personal attitudes towards others. I'm no fan of Paris Hilton, but the fact is most of American society LOVES to watch her fall apart. Why? I believe it is largely jealousy. There are many in our society who have equally appalling life-style choices, most of whom we ignore because they are poor wretched creatures. But Paris Hilton has two things most of us will never have--fabulous wealth and fame. Watching her fall warms our hearts much as the scandal that engulfs a politician, sports celebrity, or hero makes us feel good.

Just last night I was watching "America's Got Talent" on TV for the first time. I gathered one of the judges is vying to become a Simon Cowell-wannabe through rudeness, thinly disguised as "entertainingly blatant honesty". What bothered me even more than this one judge's actions was the mean spirit of the audience, obviously encouraged by the show's producers. Most parents have suffered through a school play or recital in which their kids were involved, but no matter how bad, would be ready to fight if the audience treated them this way. But as a TV audience, we revel in the shaming and humiliation of a performer who is talented in their own mind only. And we can't blame the younger generation for this degeneration of our media--the Idol and other such programs are eagerly anticipated and widely watched (and thereby endorsed) by their parents and even their grandparents.

What can we do to help you spread the word about America's heroes?

That is probably the toughest question for me to answer. I've never thought of my work as being in any way some sort of crusade, but rather simply a passion to preserve the history of who we are as a nation by concentrating on the positive. Far more than getting help "spreading the word", I guess my primary hope is that people will learn about our heroes from the pages I have written, find in these heroes the inspiration needed to give them courage in their own lives, and come to emulate the deep respect for others that motivates a young man or woman to risk, and even give their own life, for others.

My column will be read mostly by conservative, often Republican, adults. As a father, former evangelic minister and soldier, what advice would you like to give to parents on raising patriotic, God-fearing children, who will be a credit to their country and their Creator?

My message to my party today would be to get back to the values we have always believed in as Republicans:

1. We are NOT afraid to say the word "God" or "Prayer" or to acknowledge that our society was founded upon Christian principles. While we may NOT be a Christian nation, we certainly can and should be a nation of Christians--as well as others of faith.

2. We believe LESS government is a better government, and that personal liberty cannot and should not be sacrificed for security. The 13 colonies that became our United States was born in a dangerous time, a time when King George promised our residents, "I can protect you, but in turn, I'll have to infringe upon your liberties, quarter my troops in your barns, levy taxes to pay for your protection and suspend the due process of law to protect you from insurrectionists." Living in a free society means we must sometimes live in a dangerous world. As Republicans, we have always believed personal liberty was worth the risk--knowing that absolute safety can only be guaranteed by one to whom we surrender our liberty.

3. We need to get away from the situational ethics that have so long been the mantra of the Democrats and that have more recently crept into our own Republican thinking. No matter what the Democrats do, two wrongs don't make a right. As John McCain says with respect to his refusal to repay terrorists with torture, "It's not about who THEY are, it's about who WE are."

4. We believe in FAMILY, Father, Mother and children, and that "blood is thicker than water". Even so, we should not fear that which is alien to us. Our society will not be destroyed because we showed love and tolerance towards those who do not share our values; our world has always survived those who were different. Making some accommodation and giving some degree of acceptance to those different from us will NOT destroy America if we--as family--accept the responsibility we have to TRAIN, not just TEACH our children.

5. We need to become a kinder, gentler society, not just by catch-phrase, but by sincere action. We need to esteem personal achievement followed by personal service, and refuse the first, if it is not followed by the latter. We also need to fully realize that giving a hand-up is NOT socialism, but a personal responsibility.

6. We need to honestly realize that once in a while a Democrat may have a good idea and not reject-out-of-hand the entire package because it is postulated by a Liberal. The term "Liberals" defines nearly half our country and, right or wrong, they comprise half of who we are as a nation.

Thank you, Doug. You and your wife Pam are an inspiration to us all.

* Dan Gura is a contributing editor to RFFM.org.

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

"Do Ask, Do Tell" Project Hits the Ground Running

CHICAGO--After a CNN/YouTube debate where a Democratic operative posed a question to GOP presidential candidates, the subject of homosexuals in the military has, once again, come to the forefront.  CNN, which received considerable criticism for allowing a person who referred to himself as an openly gay individual, brought to light an issue that has stimulated a great deal of discussion among lawmakers, members of the military and the general public.

In response to what was an obvious attempt by homosexual special interest groups to advance an agenda which would allow openly homosexual and lesbian individuals to serve in America's Armed Forces, RFFM.org announced the formation of an organization called, "Do Ask, Do Tell."  The group's purpose would be to rescind former President Bill Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy regarding "gays" in the military.

"The response to 'Do Ask, Do Tell' has been overwhelming," said Dan Zanoza, Executive Director of RFFM.org.  "We have heard from current and former members of the Armed Forces across the country.  We haven't received one negative response to the 'Do Ask, Do Tell' project and frankly there isn't enough time to do all the things that need to be done concerning this important issue."

Many current and former members of the military believe the service of openly homosexual and lesbian military personnel would be detrimental to combat readiness.  Bill Clinton who first advanced the concept of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has been accused of using the U.S. military as a laboratory for a social experiment and many former officers have detailed how this policy has led to confusion, instead of dealing with the subject openly.

"Frankly, 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' has led to issues which have nothing to do with America's defense," said a former military officer who requested anonymity.  "If openly gay and lesbian individuals were allowed to serve in the Armed Forces, the possibility for abuse of the Uniform Code of Military Justice would be even greater and that should be plain to see for everyone."

It would take an act of Congress to change federal law regarding the service of openly gay and lesbian individuals in the U.S. military.  Nearly all of those seeking the Democratic presidential nomination say, if elected, they would lift the prohibition on homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces.

"We will soon be launching a web site regarding this matter," said Zanoza.  "Also, we plan to begin a campaign of information-sharing nationwide featuring the thoughts of former military officers on this subject.  I was surprised by the response we received to the 'Do Ask, Do Tell' initiative.  There are strong feelings on this subject that have nothing to do with intolerance concerning homosexuals.  These men and women simply care about the defense of their country and their motives should not be questioned."

Zanoza hopes to have the web site up and running as soon as possible.  He also believes the subject may become a heated issue for discussion by presidential hopefuls.

Those seeking more information about "Do Ask, Do Tell" should contact Dan Zanoza at Dan@rffm.org. 

Related articles:

"Openly Gay General Gets Notoriety For Bad Behavior: Sign Of The Times" http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2007/12/openly-gay-gene.html 

CNN/YouTube Debate A Political Ambush Says Former U.S. Naval Officer Who Was There--An Interview with Cy Huerter
http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2007/12/cnnyoutube-deba.html

RFFM.org Launches "Do Ask, Do Tell" Group To Counter Homosexuality In Military--Can You Help?
http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2007/12/do-ask-do-tell.html

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

RFFM.org Launches "Do Ask, Do Tell" Group To Counter Homosexuality In Military--Can You Help?

by Tom Daniels

In December of 1992, even before he began his first term as President, Bill Clinton announced a controversial policy related to the service of homosexuals in the military called, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT).  At the time, the Clinton administration was seriously lobbying Congress to change federal law which prevented openly homosexual individuals from serving in the United States Armed Forces.  Clinton's plan was met by furious criticism from political conservatives as well as military members who said such tampering with federal law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) would negatively impact the nation's ability to defend itself.

Hence, Clinton backed away from his original plans and subsequently introduced the aforementioned "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy which is still in force today.  The premise behind DADT is simple, but it has resulted in more confusion, according to many military personnel.  Under DADT, openly homosexual individuals are still prohibited from serving in the armed forces.  However, recruiters and officers are instructed not to ask questions regarding an individual's sexual orientation and members of the military are supposed to keep their personal sexual habits private.

Many believe there is a movement being led by liberal politicians, "gay" activists and some members of the dominant media that would lift the prohibitions that state homosexuals cannot serve in the military under current law.  It must be noted there have been a significant number of individuals discharged from the armed forces because they violated the UCMJ related to their sexual orientation.  However, some sources claim the number of discharges that have taken place in recent years, due to the military's restrictions on open homosexuality, have dropped considerably.

"DO ASK, DO TELL" Group Launched

RFFM.org has launched an effort to counter the pro-homosexual agenda being advanced by some special interest groups.  "Obviously, there are those who want to change federal law regarding homosexuals in the military," said Daniel Zanoza, executive director of RFFM.org.  "Our goal is to form a group comprised of former military officers whose purpose will be to counter the attempts by pro 'gay' special interest groups who want to change federal law.  For now, we are calling the organization, 'Do Ask, Do Tell' and its purpose will be to produce documentaries, form a speakers bureau and launch a campaign of information-sharing that would explain why 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' has not worked and why there needs to be a clear, concise policy regarding this matter."

The issue of homosexuals in the military, once again, came to the forefront during a recent debate sponsored by CNN and YouTube.  Republican presidential candidates were met with a question by an individual claiming to be an "undecided voter" and who was introduced by CNN as a former "Brigadier General" in the United States Army.  It was later learned that Keith Kerr's highest rank in the National Guard was Colonel.

In a letter written to noted-author David Horowitz and published on David Horowitz/frontpagemagazine.com, retired Brigadier General William Becker wrote of Kerr:

Keith Kerr IS NOT A BRIGADIER GENERAL.  HE IS NOT EVEN AN ACTIVE DUTY RETIRED ARMY OFFICER.  HE SPENT HIS YEARS AS A RESERVIST SOLELY IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA MILITARY BUREAUCRACY.  HIS BIO IS PUBLISHED IN THE GAY ORGANIZATION DEDICATED TO VOIDING THE "DON'T ASK DON'T TELL" POLICY.

FOR DETAILS.  YOU MUST NOTE THAT KERR WAS RETIRED FROM THE INACTIVE ARMY RESERVES IN THE GRADE OF COLONEL.  WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A FEW YEARS SERVED ON ACTIVE DUTY AS A LIEUTENANT HIS ENTIRE SERVICE WAS IN THE RESERVES IN CALIFORNIA.  HE WAS PLACED IN RETIRED RESERVE STATUS WITH THE CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD RESERVES AND PROMOTED TO BRIGADIER GENERAL IN THAT FEDERALLY UNRECOGNIZED STATUS.

THIS IS CONSIDERED AN "HONORARY" TITLE SIMILAR TO THE PHD AWARDED BY UNIVERSITIES AS HONORARIUM.  WE WOULD NEVER REFER TO SUCH AWARDEES AS "DOCTOR".  IT IS ALSO NOTEWORTHY THAT HE WAS A GRADUATE OF UC BERKELEY AND SERVED AS AN INSTRUCTOR IN ACADEMIA.

HE HAS NO COMBAT EXPERIENCE DURING HIS 43 YEARS OF "SERVICE" AND IT IS A DISGRACE FOR HIM TO BE ASSOCIATED BY THE MEDIA WITH THE ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY!!!!

Besides Kerr's questionable credentials, his appearance on the CNN/YouTube debate had its intended effect.  Once again, the subject of openly homosexual individuals serving in the military is being debated in the public square.

"The attempt to change public opinion regarding homosexuals in the military was made clear in the CNN/YouTube debate when the network went out of its way to create a debate over a subject they wanted to promote," said Zanoza.  "The defense of our nation is at stake.  Military readiness and the morale of those serving in America's Armed Forces should be everyone's foremost concern.  The military should not be used as a laboratory for social experimentation.  Political correctness and all that comes with it is too high a price to pay when our nation's security is at stake."

It would take an act of Congress to change the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  However, the will of the American people should trump the desires of groups who put their self-interest ahead of the nation's welfare.  It's time to join the fight.

For those former military officers and members of the general public who would like to join "Do Ask, Do Tell" contact Dan@rffm.org.  For those who would like to make a contribution to RFFM.org, please write to:  RFFM.org, 904 21st St., #71, Lincoln, IL 62656. 

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