RFFM.ORG

Andrew Young and Racism

Editor's note: This week RFFM.org will look at race relations in America.  Beginning with Bill Zettler's column, we will try to shed light on the reasons for an ever-growing racial chasm in America.

From the Desk of Bill Zettler *

In a recent interview while discussing small business enterprises in black neighborhoods, Andrew Young said, "I think they've ripped off our communities enough. First it was Jews, then it was Koreans and now it's Arabs, very few black people own these stores."

You would think a baseball fan like Andrew Young would understand that no one would have settled for a measly triple when he could have easily had a 4 bagger – a home run - if he could have just slurred one more race. Yes, sir, he was rounding third, headed for home--when he lost his concentration. Jews on first, Koreans on second, Arabs on third and, jumping on home plate – maybe whites!

Thankfully, Young did us a politically incorrect favor by reminding us that white folks do not have a monopoly on racism. And Jesse Jackson must have been smiling knowing that Young’s gaffe will make his 1984 anti-Semitic comments about “Hymies” and “Hymietown” in a New York interview seem too pale in comparison.

I always find it curious that multi-millionaires like Mr. Young and Jesse Jackson complain a lot about lack of services in black neighborhoods, but never seem to find it profitable to invest their personal money, time and, occasionally, their life by investing in the hood. No sir, leave it to Jews, Koreans and Arabs to work 14 hour days, 7 days a week in crime-ridden neighborhoods--areas where Young and Jackson will never be found--unless there is a news camera present. If you can afford a million dollar town home in Georgetown, why risk your money in a store in south central LA? Leave that ugly job to the 4 baggers. And then complain about them.

So, Andy, how about writing a check for a storefront, then another for furniture and fixtures, then another for insurance, then another for inventory. That would be chump change for you, considering your Congressional pension, your U.N. Ambassador pension and your Atlanta mayoral pension. But, for most people, that investment would be their life savings or close to it. Then be prepared to stand behind the counter for endless hours to make sure neither you nor your people get ripped off. Oh, by the way, don’t bother wearing the typical Washington $100 silk power tie. The bulletproof vest will just cover it up.

And if you are wondering where all those young Jewish, Korean and Arab doctors and scientists come from, they come from families where parents did write checks and stand behind the counter--so their kids wouldn’t have to. And, of course, they did not have the very generous taxpayer-funded Congressional pension, U.N. Ambassador pension or the Atlanta mayoral pension. In fact, they pay the taxes that pay your pension.

So, Mr. Young, put your money where your mouth is. Get your checkbook out and show the Jews, Koreans and Arabs how to do it right. We’re waiting. My guess is we will be waiting forever.

* Bill Zettler is a contributing editor of RFFM.org.

O'Reilly Panders To Jackson + Sharpton While Facing Unfair Racism Charges

RFFM.org Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, National Director

Earlier this week, popular cable talk show host, Bill O'Reilly (The O'Reilly Factor--FOX NEWS) came under withering attack from some members of the dominant media for comments he made on his syndicated radio talk show.  Led by Media Matters, a self-appointed far left wing media watchdog group, O'Reilly was charged with making racist comments towards African-Americans.  Although Media Matters is clearly a partisan organization, some mainstream media outlets, including CNN and MSNBC, gave credence to the allegations--although most objective journalists cleared O'Reilly of any wrongdoing after a review of the FOX host's words were taken in their full context.

Briefly, on his radio program (The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly) O'Reilly was attempting to point out how the media inaccurately portrays the African-American community as people who smoke marijuana while listening to gangster rappers like Snoop Dogg and 50 Cent.

Sadly, O'Reilly's words were intentionally misinterpreted by Media Matters and others in the left wing press who will take any opportunity to discredit conservatives.  In reality, O'Reilly was saying the negative perception created by Hollywood of African-Americans is false.  O'Reilly is a particular target for groups like MoveOn.org because of his extreme popularity and the fact FOX NEWS beats out other competition in his 7 P.M. (Central) time slot by a margin of six to one.  FOX is also the most popular cable news network by far--surpassing CNN, MSNBC and all other cable news competition combined.

However, on Wednesday and Thursday (September 26th and 27th) O'Reilly fell into a trap that has led to some of the poor journalism we see in America today.  The FOX NEWS host ran to members of the far left, in order to seek protection from the charges of racism he was receiving.  In doing so, O'Reilly belittled himself and may have become a captive of the politically correct world which he so vigorously criticizes.

On Wednesday, O'Reilly invited the Rev. Al Sharpton to appear on his TV program.  O'Reilly's motives were clear.  Essentially, he was saying;  look, African-American leaders, like Al Sharpton, regularly appear on The O'Reilly Factor, they know I'm a good guy and I am not a racist.  However, in something that can only be called pitiful, the Rev. Jesse Jackson was a guest on Thursday's show.  Frankly, the program was hard to watch.  Jackson, like Sharpton in his appearance before him, used the popular format to advance a highly controversial racial agenda.

While Jackson droned on about the situation in Jena, the usually cantankerous O'Reilly acted like a whipped puppy dog--as he was dominated by the civil rights activist.  To make matters worse, O'Reilly, who is usually well-versed regarding the subjects which come up for discussion on the show thanks to an excellent production staff, time after time pleaded ignorance regarding the racial tension in Jena, and the circumstances which led to it.

"Well, I don't know what went on there, you do," said O'Reilly, again and again, in response to some of Jackson's comments which can only be called ridiculous by reasonable adults with the slightest familiarity concerning the case in Jena.  Jackson once said a white boy who was knocked unconscious after being attacked by six black students was a victim of an accidental kick to the head.  O'Reilly again responded by pleading ignorance to the facts surrounding the prosecution of the six African-American defendants, while in past shows, O'Reilly spoke at great lengths about the details of that particular case.

For perhaps the first time in the history of The O'Reilly Factor, the guest interrupted the host in a dismissive manner.  O'Reilly was far more assertive in his interviews with President George W. Bush than he was with the African-American leader.  It was a shameful performance meant to appease his liberal attackers--while Sharpton and Jackson were given the opportunity to spout untruths and, at the very least, their biased perception of race relations in America.

You would think it couldn't get any worse, but it did later in Thursday's program.  While interviewing former CBS journalist and best-selling author Bernard Goldberg ("Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right"), O'Reilly asked Goldberg what he thought of his talk with Jackson.  It was obviously an uncomfortable moment.  Goldberg hesitatingly said "I have mixed feelings about the interview" as his voice trailed off.  Then, Goldberg, the former CBS journalist-turned-media-critic, went into a withering attack of Jackson, citing the reason for many of the problems facing the African-American community.  Goldberg attacked Jackson for not taking a strong position about the fact that 70% of children in the black community today are born to single mothers.

It was apparent Goldberg was tactfully suggesting O'Reilly should have pressed Jackson further on the subject--instead of letting him ramble on about other less important issues.  O'Reilly responded by saying he did question Jackson on this matter, but any viewer would say O'Reilly's efforts to pin Jackson down regarding the problem of unwed mothers and missing fathers in the black community were, at best, lame.  Perhaps the reason Jackson does not pursue this issue is related to the fact it was just a few years ago he himself fathered a child out of wedlock with a former Operation PUSH employee.  But O'Reilly did not want to rock the boat and ignored the subject for the remainder of the segment.

To throw salt on what was fast becoming a festering journalistic wound, O'Reilly told Goldberg that Jackson admitted the criticism he was receiving was unfair--though Jackson's acknowledgement to O'Reilly was said after the on-air segment.

Jackson probably did tell O'Reilly that Media Matters and others were wrong for taking O'Reilly's words out of context.  But why didn't Jackson say these words on the air?  However, in a self-serving attempt to defend himself against charges of racism, he, once again, gave Jackson a pass.  Jackson's failure to support O'Reilly while the cameras were on was, at best, duplicitous and, at the very least, disingenuous.

Of course O'Reilly has the right to defend himself against spurious charges.  But one does not turn to the enemy of truth to seek righteousness.  A house divided against itself cannot stand and O'Reilly sacrificed his principles, in order to save face with members of our society who would hate him no matter what the evidence indicated.

I think Bill O'Reilly and The O'Reilly Factor add balance to the field of journalism and commentary in America.  For example, O'Reilly's work to protect sexually abused children is outstanding.  His promotion of Jessica's Law, which would help to keep track of child predators, has led to the legislation being passed in over 30 states across the nation and, hopefully, more will follow suit.

However, O'Reilly's performance during the past week, while attempting to fend off unfair criticism, leaves much to be desired.  Hopefully, the FOX talk show host will learn the truth can stand alone and only bad things will result from turning to those who deny the truth for support.  Jackson and Sharpton both misrepresented the facts concerning the situation in Jena and, in this case, the truth became a victim in O'Reilly's attempt to clear himself of charges from those who are using race to divide our nation.

Ann Scheidler, Pro-Life Action League, "In Her Own Words" 9th in RFFM.org series

To commemorate RFFM.org's 15 years of service to the conservative community, we have been conducting a series of monthly interviews throughout 2007 with some of the most influential leaders in the pro-family/conservative movement. RFFM.org's national director, Daniel Zanoza, will conduct Q + A sessions with the aim of educating our readers as to some of the views held by those who work tirelessly to reach their stated goals.

Those previously interviewed include:  Sen. Bill Brady, Sen. Chris Lauzen; Catholic Citizens of Illinois Founder Mary Anne Hackett; writer and conservative activist Dan Gura; ILCAAAP (Illinois Church Action on Alcohol and Addiction Problems) Executive Director Anita Bedell; property rights advocate Joyce Morrison; Americans For Truth Founder and President Peter LaBarbera; and Illinois Right to Life Committee Executive Director Bill Beckman.  To read any of these interviews, click on "In Their Own Words" under categories on the RFFM.org home page or go to: http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/in_their_own_words/index.html.

The ninth interview in RFFM.org's series continues with Ann Scheidler, Executive Director, Pro-Life Action League.

Mission Statement from the Pro-Life Action League website: http://www.prolifeaction.org/about/

The Pro-Life Action League was founded by Joseph M. Scheidler in 1980 with the aim of saving unborn children through non-violent direct action.

We are doing all we can to stop the killing and the exploitation. Some of our key activities are:

* Abortion Clinic Presence
* Public Protest
* Confronting the Abortionists
* Promoting and Defending Activism
* Broadcasting the Pro-Life Message
* Youth Outreach

Biography:

League Executive Director Ann Scheidler's involvement with the pro-life movement began in 1973 when her husband, National Director, Joe Scheidler began to work full-time in pro-life work. In 1980, she helped found the League.

In 1990, Ann began working part-time at the League as Assistant Director, a position which gradually became full-time. Since 2000 she has served as Executive Director, and is closely involved with all aspects of the League's work, from public relations and development to activism and outreach.

Ann is a frequent speaker on pro-life activism and sidewalk counseling, and has appeared on numerous radio and television programs. She travels extensively conducting sidewalk counseling training sessions.

Ann holds a bachelor's degree from Mundelein College. She is the mother of seven children, including League staffers Annie Casselman and Eric Scheidler.

"In Her Own Words" -- Ann Scheidler

Q.  Recently, the Pro-Life Action League won an important legal victory.  I don't want to get in to the particulars of the case because there still may be legal issues pending.  However, I'd like to ask you what kind of impact this stressful experience had on you, your family and the organization itself.  Did the experience change the way you think about the fight against abortion?

A.  We won the NOW v. Scheidler RICO case first in January 2003. NOW (National Organization for Women) quite incredibly appealed the U.S. Supreme Court decision, claiming the Supreme Court had not ruled on all the issues. So it went back to the Supreme Court again and we got another, unanimous, victory in 2006. I think the brunt of the stress was really felt more by our children than by us. For the first several years of the case (it was filed in 1986), we really paid no attention to it. We let the lawyers handle it. But once it was certain that the case was going to trial, it became more of an intrusion into our lives and our mission. For one thing we had to try to raise enough money to pay the law firm that Tom Brejcha (lead lawyer) worked for. Americans United for Life took on much of the expense initially, but they were not able to absorb the cost of trial and bowed out when we got to that stage. Tom's firm also finally bailed, leaving him with the choice of continuing to represent us or staying with the firm. He opted to stay the course with our case, which led to establishing the Thomas More Society Pro-Life Law Center.

But back to the kids. Things affect different people in different ways. Some of our kids were more sensitive to the fact that their father's job was pretty controversial and were aware that we was being sued. They weren't sure how their friends would react to the situation, or how they felt about abortion in general. Our own kids have always been strongly pro-life, but some of them are more reticent about discussing it. All of them had to face comments and criticism for what Joe had chosen for his life's work. It is hard to have to be on the defensive so much of the time.

The experience did have an effect on the way we approach the fight against abortion. We know personally the financial cost of having to defend yourself in court and we would not want to ask that of other people. We would want to be sure that anyone who gets involved in pro-life activism is aware of the potential for battles in court, especially now that the FACE Act (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances) is on the books. FACE was a direct result of Operation Rescue and the blockades of abortion clinics, which was a main aspect of the RICO case. We have always believed that it is possible to save lives and impact the culture without being arrested. Since the RICO case experience we are ever more committed to lawful activism--sidewalk counseling, picketing, Face the Truth Tours. We are also determined to preserve our First Amendment Right to protest and speak out against abortion. This will mean filing lawsuits against municipalities that try to restrict our rights, but it is paramount that we confront illicit police action and unconstitutional restrictions on free speech and assembly.

Q.  You have been standing for the rights of the unborn for many years.  Can you tell RFFM.org readers why you feel so passionately about the subject?

A.  Both Joe and I come from large families that value the gift of children. When Roe v. Wade came down in January 1973 I was pregnant with our fourth child, who also turned out to be our first girl. I couldn't believe that America would declare that the baby in my womb had no value unless I chose to give it value. We vowed to get involved and do something to turn things around. At the time, we were naive and thought that all we had to do was show the American people that the unborn baby was a human, and people would rise up in indignation and oppose abortion. That, of course, did not happen. We had no intention of spending the rest of our lives doing pro-life work. I'm not sure when it became apparent that that's what it would take, but certainly since 1980 we have known there would never be any other path for us. That's when we founded the Pro-Life Action League to specialize in activism as opposed to political action or educational efforts--both of which are great, but activism is the grassroots effort to save lives.

Q.  Since the Roe v. Wade ruling, handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 which legalized abortion in America, the nation has certainly become polarized regarding the issue.  In what direction do you think the nation is heading?  Are Americans coming to the understanding that abortion is the taking of human life or is the pendulum swinging the other way?

A.  For many years it seemed the country was headed deeper and deeper into immorality. And, on some fronts, it still seems headed that way. But, on abortion, I think the national psyche is changing. The pro-life movement has kept the issue at the forefront for over 34 years. People know more than they did in 1973. The debate over the partial-birth abortion ban educated a lot of people. The women who speak out about their own abortions are having a profound effect. I believe that, in addition to those who speak out publicly, there are thousands of women who quietly and privately tell their own friends, daughters and nieces that abortion was the biggest mistake they ever made and they advise other women to choose life. That's part of the reason that the numbers of abortions are down. Most people of child-bearing age now have an ultrasound photo of themselves in their baby book. They know that the baby in the womb has a heartbeat and fingers and toes. They can see the baby's eyes in the picture. It becomes much more difficult to call that baby "fetal tissue" and "a glob of cells." Our Face the Truth tours educate thousands of everyday Americans who would never go to a pro-life website or read a pro-life publication. But they see the graphic display of what abortion does to the baby--as they drive down the street--and it can't help but get into their brain that abortion is ugly. That image will be there if they are ever faced with a decision about a pregnancy and they will have to reckon with the truth when they make their choice.

Q.  You once told me something which I felt was a challenge to those who think abortion should be outlawed in our country.  We were discussing the huge crowds which turn out in Washington, D.C. on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision.  But you intimated people needed to do more than just show up at annual rallies.  You said something to the effect that the big crowds in our nation's capitol were fine, but pro-lifers needed to do more when they went back to their communities.  Could you elaborate on that?

A.  It is invigorating to go to the March for Life on January 22 in Washington. People feel good about doing it. But they should not feel so good about it that they go home and do nothing else for the rest of the year. It should mark the first thing they do in the year, with a commitment to get more deeply involved in changing the culture. The politicians have gotten used to the annual march. They pay no attention. And, for the most part, the media pays no attention. So we have to do more. Everyone who marches in Washington should follow up by calling and/or writing their senators and their legislators, asking them to sponsor and vote for pro-life bills, asking them to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood and any other entity that commits abortions. They should volunteer for a CPC (Crisis Pregnancy Center), learn how to sidewalk counsel, protest the presence of an abortion clinic in their own community, like what is going on in Aurora, organize or join a respect life committee at their church, hold prayer services and discussion panels on life issues, read Joe Scheidler's book "CLOSED" for a host of ideas on how to spread the message of life, talk to their own family and friends about the value of life and the reality of abortion.

Q.  Many right to life supporters believe we are one Supreme Court Justice short of seeing the reversal of Roe v. Wade.  Do you think this is true and do you think that day will ever come?

A.  I think the Court will ultimately reverse Roe v. Wade because it is bad law. That will probably take a while longer, but it will not erase abortion from the nation. Many states have brought their own abortion laws into line with Roe v. Wade, which will mean that if the ruling is overturned the state law allowing abortion will still be in effect. States like Illinois, New York and California with many, many abortion clinics will become abortion destination states. So we will have years and years of pro-life work ahead even when Roe v. Wade falls. That is why it is important to get restrictions on abortion, things like right to know laws, parental notice laws and 24-hour waiting laws. These don't end abortion, but they assure that the woman seeking an abortion has to think a little longer about it and she will have to know more about it before she goes through with it.  The battle will become more localized as pro-life activists and politicos work to restore a respect for life in their own states. I believe the day will come when abortion is unthinkable, but just like with slavery and segregation, which were taken for granted for decades in this country, it will take a long time and a change of attitude on the part of Americans. Anyone in America would be appalled now to see a sign on a drinking fountain reading "Whites Only." In 50 years, I think people will be appalled to see "Abortion Services" on a medical building.

Q.  Pro-abortionists have successfully advanced the myth that if Roe v. Wade was struck down, abortions then would be illegal in every state.  You briefly touched on this in your last answer, can you elaborate a bit more on this issue?

A.  I think I addressed that in the prior question. A Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade would simply return the matter to the states, where it had been prior to 1973. Before the 1973 decision several states had legalized abortion and Michigan was trying to return to the days of prohibiting abortion in the state. Once again, each state would have to legislate abortion. That is why it is so important to elect state representatives and state senators who are pro-life and who will support laws to restrict or outlaw abortion.

Q.  Do we have to change the culture before victory can be declared in the fight against the taking of innocent human life or does the fight center around politics?  Or are the issues not mutually exclusive?

A.  The fight does not center around politics. For every baby whose life is spared by the intervention of a sidewalk counselor or a crisis pregnancy center or by an individual who offers compassion to a friend, Roe v. Wade is essentially null and void. Whether the politicians catch up or not, we can build a culture of life. We can create an environment that welcomes children and supports pregnant mothers and fosters saving sex until marriage. We must strengthen the family. Pro-life families serve as examples in their communities of how a family should be structured. And since pro-life families continue to grow, while pro-abortion folks have few or no children, we are bound to win by attrition if nothing else!

Q.  What are your feelings about other right to life issues, including euthanasia?  Do you support the death penalty and, if so, could you elaborate on your position?

A.  There are many issues that involve attacks on life: euthanasia, assisted suicide, artificial reproductive technology, embryonic stem cell research, homosexuality, sex education and capital punishment. Wherever life is devalued, we must try to enkindle a reverence for life. Many people do not realize that creating human embryos for the purpose of research is an assault on a human life. Many people have no clue that artificial insemination and invitro fertilization are wrong because they take the process of creating new life out of the context of married love and put it in a science lab. It is a challenge to try to educate people on these complex issues and it will take a long time to make the average person understand. Often they think it is compassionate to end the life of a terminally ill person, or to artificially aid the conception of a new life, forgetting that it is God's job to begin and end a life.

As to the death penalty, I think it is moral from a biblical perspective, but in a modern society like the United States it is unlikely that we actually need the death penalty in order to assure the safety of the public, but it is important to make sure that a life sentence really means a life sentence in the case of criminals who pose a serious danger to the public. Our prison system is so deeply flawed it is hard to know how often someone is wrongfully imprisoned, even for very serious crimes. The possibility of executing the wrong person is so disastrous that I believe it is better to choose never to execute anyone than to risk making the wrong move.

Q.  During my study of the media for the last 15 years, I have found many politicians who claim to be pro-life hold that position solely for political reasons.  With many in the dominant media supporting abortion, the truth about the voting records of elected officials is often hidden.  For example, some politicians claim to be pro-life, but their actions are not consistent with their stated views.  Obviously, pro-life voters need to know all the facts, in order to make informed decisions about who they're voting for and this takes work.  But, as you know, most people do not take the time to look into the record of political candidates.  I see this as one of the major reasons why abortion is still legal in America.  What are your thoughts on this very complicated subject?

A. For a committed minority the position of candidates on the issue of abortion is the defining issue. But for most voters, it comes down to the politician's likeability, ethnicity or name recognition. We should try to educate voters on the issues, but it will always be an uphill battle because the pro-life movement operates on a shoestring. The bigger challenge is to get pro-life politicians to really understand how to articulate their positions. Too often they are reticent to bring up the issue. They send out position papers to the general public without any mention of abortion and a separate paper to pro-lifers about how they support efforts to restrict abortion. They have to learn to be proud of standing for life. If they would take the time to sit down and talk with actual pro-life activists, they could learn how to do this and would get much more support from the pro-life community. Pro-lifers are willing to work hard for a candidate they are sure is with them, but when a candidate cannot talk intelligently about the issues or turns around and votes against a pro-life initiative for some lame reason, the support vanishes, as it should.

Q.  What can people do if they want to get involved with your organization? 

A.  Go to our website: www.prolifeaction.org to find out what we're all about, make a donation, learn how to sidewalk counsel, order our materials. We can put people to work in the movement.

Q.  If people want to send contributions, where can they send them? Pro-Life Action League, 6160 N. Cicero Ave., Suite # 600, Chicago, IL 60646

CONTACT THE PRO-LIFE ACTION LEAGUE

Web site: www.prolifeaction.org

Phone: (773) 777-2900

Address: 6160 N. Cicero Ave., Chicago, IL 60646

Some colorful thoughts while flying over the heartland by Dan Gura

"On the Lighter Side" by Dan Gura *

After thirty-five years and a couple billion miles, my beautiful wife Sandy was retiring as a flight attendant with United Air Lines (UAL) and I joined her on her last trip to Honolulu. (Photo: Sandy Gura wearing a vintage UAL uniform on her final flight for UAL)

Since I had no interest in the in-flight movie, I passed the time by watching the seemingly endless Rocky Mountains and thumbing through a dog-eared copy of Hemispheres.  In the center of the free airline magazine was a map of the United States which showed every route United flew; I held it to the window and tried without success to figure out where we were.  I mean, one majestic snow capped peak pretty much looks like the next from 50,000 feet and I quickly realized that, with the exception of the pilot and navigator, no one on board had the slightest idea which mountainous state we were flying over.

A light went on over my head (not Divine Providence, but the reading light in the overhead compartment--which should be opened carefully because the contents may have shifted during take off) and I noticed every state was clearly identified with its name in bold letters (except for the really tiny little New England states like Rhode Island which were abbreviated).

That was when I was awestruck with a brilliant idea, one which would benefit every geographically challenged passenger soaring through the friendly skies.  The federal government should erect colossal letters spelling out each individual state's names--and not some little letters mind you, but gigantically enormous ones, huge enough to be seen by every airliner flying from sea to shining sea.  From that day forward, passengers would be able to look out the window at the awesome alphabetical tableaux spread out across the amber fields of grain and fruited plains and say with confidence, "Well lookie there Mable, we're over Eye-O-Way."

After we landed, I discussed my idea with the captain and he thought letters a mile long by half a mile wide would do the job just fine.  At that size, my mammoth state identifiers would make the landmark H-O-L-L-Y-W-O-O-D sign, with its puny 45' high by 30' wide letters, look like the runt of the litter.  Of course, each letter will be illuminated so brightly you'll be able to read them whenever the weatherman shows a satellite view of our country on the nightly news.

At first I thought the state's names should be color-coded, according to how they voted in the last presidential election; red lights to delineate God-fearing states where marriage means one man and one woman and life is sacred from conception to natural death, and blue lights warning of the states where the spirit of Sodom and Gomorrah reigns supreme.  (Map: 2004 Presidential election results) 

But, as I gazed across the purple mountains majesty, I realized the media was wrong.  The blue state and red state labels, first used in that context on NBC's "Today" show about a week before the 2000 election, are as artificial as the lines on a map which divide our states.  In fact, from the air it is nigh impossible to tell where one state begins and the next one ends.  Oh sure, you can spot geological features like the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes, but the artificial, man made lines between Utah and Colorado exist only on paper.  And the higher you go, the more our country blends together; from where I sat, there was no question that we truly are one nation under God, indivisible.   

The more I thought about it, the more certain I was that we had been lied to by the media.  Their highly touted state-by-state maps--which colored the New England states, upper Midwest and west coast blue, while the majority of the country was red--did not prove how divided our country is any more than Richard Nixon's landslide win in 1972 (1) and Ronald Reagan's landslide victories in 1980 and 1984 (2) proved that America was united under the GOP banner. 

Princeton University's Robert Vanderbei gave a more accurate perspective with a map that blends the colors representing percentages of voters (by county) for each party.  On his map, individual states are not solid red or solid blue--they are hundreds of shades of purple.  And that purple does a great job of representing the unity of the world's melting pot.  Case in point:  In 2000 Al Gore won New Mexico by just 366 votes.  That made it a blue state on the media's old staple.  Vanderbei's map more correctly shows it to be a cornucopia of magenta colors.

The 2008 presidential election is still over a year away.  Heck, neither party has even picked a standard bearer.  Yet the pundits at the 24/7/365 cable news stations, when not reporting on OJ's latest foibles, are already harping on the red state-blue state divisions.  They call it healing the rift.  I call it trying to create conflict where none exists.

And thanks to the Internet there's more...much, much more.  I Googled "red blue state 2008" and found 2,210,000 hits, including articles with cutesy names like "One state, two state, red state, blue state," "Blue Grass, Red State," and "Don't it Make my Red State Blue."  There are bloggers championing every color of the rainbow--provided the spectrum is limited to two hues: Republican red and Democratic blue--who wax endlessly on how to convert one color to the other.

For those who can't get enough of the red/blue non-sense, www.electoral-vote.com includes a map that rates how each state leaned-strong, weak, barely--in the last election.  Far more informative is their listing of hundreds of 2008 presidential polls (updated daily).  They even tracked two Brown University polls for Rhode Island--that electoral vote gold mine--which put Hillary ahead of Obama (35%-16% up from 35% to 8% on January 27th). 

In closing, the only thing I can promise with a 100% degree of certainty is you will be sick of hearing the phrase "red state-blue state" months before Fred Thompson is inaugurated as the 44th President of the United States of America.

(1) Sandy only evacuated one airplane during her career, a charter for Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern, who went on to lose to Richard Nixon, who received the most electoral votes ever, 520, versus McGovern's 17.  Curiously, that map showed the Republican states in blue.    

(2) In 1980 Reagan received 489 electoral votes while Jimmy Carter received only 49.  In 1984 Reagan shattered Nixon's 1972 record by received 525 electoral votes, while Walter "Fritz" Mondale only carried his home state of Minnesota with a mere 13 electoral votes.

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

Does "God Bless America" Violate the Establishment Clause?

Commentary by Arlene Sawicki, Illinois

Just in time to shed light on the controversy caused by one atheist, freshman student council member at Buffalo Grove High School (Illinois) who suggested that the song "God Bless America" is not appropriate to be played over the PA system for their upcoming homecoming events, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) is distributing an informational letter outlining the rights of student to express their religious faith in a public school setting.  http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/SYATPLetter.pdf

This ACLJ letter focuses on the annual "See You at the Pole" event scheduled for September 26th, but also applies to free speech guidelines for any form of student-led and student-initiated movement to express their religious beliefs on campus.

To quote the ACLJ letter:
"Student prayer is a protected form of speech that cannot be banned by school officials, including prayer at 'See You at the Pole' events. A school official who refuses to allow students the right to pray on their campus is engaging in censorship in violation of the First Amendment. "

And to clarify the issue of having the nationally revered song "God Bless America" played on the school's PA system, the letter states:

"However, where student groups that meet for non-religious activities are permitted to advertise or announce their meetings—for example, by advertising in a student newspaper, making announcements on a student activities bulletin board or public address system, or handing out leaflets—school authorities may not discriminate against groups who meet to pray.  School authorities may disclaim sponsorship of non-curricular groups and events, provided they administer such disclaimers in a manner that neither favors nor disfavors groups that meet to engage in prayer or religious speech."

Unfortunately, in today's neo-pagan secular climate, those hostile to any public display of religious expression attempt to disseminate false information and frivolous challenges to the First Amendment rights of public school students.  It is because parents, students and teachers are not adequately informed as to First Amendment religious speech protections that these biased and blatant violations occur.

The ACLJ suggests that every parent download the letter and present it to their children's public school teachers and administrators.  They also provide a Legal Helpline Phone Number, should any challenge arise.

Legal Helpline Phone:  757-226-2489
Legal Helpline Fax:  757-226-2836

The ACLJ states:
"At a time when there is so much uncertainty on public school campuses, we want to ensure that everyone understands the constitutional rights afforded to students who want to pray and express their faith."

Letter to RFFM.org Editor: Poor Race Relations In America A Result Of Media + An Educational System Which Fails To Inform

Editor's Note: The following letter is in response to an RFFM.org Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza titled, "Is the blind support of O.J. Simpson and others a form of racism?" [http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2007/09/is-the-blind-su.html]

You are so right in the judgment of today's world.  But you know there is one thing that no one seems to want to mention, from the early slave days to now, and it is this and it should be pounded into the black community's head:  Black slaves were sold by those of their own kind to the slave dealers.  Africans raided villages, rounded up the people and marched them in bondage to the slave dealers and received payment for selling their own race.  Yet, if one does not research this, it is a well kept secret by not only the black community, but by the media itself.  Personally, I think it is time that this truth comes out.  And blacks were not the first slaves in America.  My own Irish background comes from bondaged Irishmen/women, brought to this country and forced into bondage to white people, but they rose above it and became good Americans.  My Irish grandfather married a Native America and there were children born of this marriage, but do they rise up and complain?  No and none of the thousands of Irish live in the past of their older generations living bondage.  Also, rape of the bonded maidens was not uncommon among the bond holders.   

They quietly moved into the mainstream of America and become a part of the heritage of this country, as did  the Italians.  They learned the English language, the laws and accepted the U.S. Constitution as the law of this country.  So, somebody, explain to me the difference. Only the ancestors of black slaves demand payment and live in the past.  Yet they are as free in this country now as whites, American Indians, etc., maybe more so than Native Americans.  The blacks of today know nothing of yesterday, they receive a good education (that is if they want to stay in school and learn),they can go to any college they wish, hold good jobs along side whites, eat along side whites, some are moving into white neighborhoods and being accepted, their children are friends with white kids, play sports with white kids, visit in white kids homes, intermingle with white kids in everything and are accepted as though there is no difference in skin color, as it should be.

So, someone, please tell me why the older generation want their new generations to hold the past, as though it were treasure and teach the hate in hearts and demand things for repayment they never experienced.  It is time the black world get out of their box and realize the long road they have fought to get here and appreciate the fact they are part of mainstream America, and quit supporting those in their community who bring turmoil into their lives, use them for their own selfish reason.  Quit supporting a black just because he is black when they know he is wrong and is guilty of whatever crime he has done, and judge that man like any other man would with brains in his/her head.

But I want the world to know that white slavers did not go into the jungles of Africa and force the blacks into slavery.  The black world of Africa raided and sold their own to the slave buyers.  Yes, it was wrong to buy them, but the worse crime was the raiding, rape and forcible bondage of slavery by their own race for greed.  It is time the black race admits the truth and appreciate what they have today.  But it will never happen until the media opens this door and forces them to accept the fact.

Doris S., Texas

Is the blind support of O.J. Simpson and others a form of racism? by Daniel Zanoza

Daniel T. Zanoza, National Director

As former New York Yankee Hall of Famer Yogi Berra might say, it sounds like deja vu all over again.  Of course, Yogi would be talking about O.J. Simpson, once again, being charged with a violent crime while he sits in the Las Vegas County Jail.  Well, Yogi didn't say it, but I did and, to tell the truth, this latest Simpson escapade has not caused me to shed any tears.

Most certainly I do not find glee in the fact another human being is deeply troubled, but I have to confess there is a type of poetic justice at work after Simpson was charged with armed robbery last weekend.  As Robert Blake's TV character Baretta used to say, "don't do the crime, if you can't do the time."

However, there is a more serious aspect of Simpson's alleged crimes that may again confront America.  In a brief recap, O.J. Simpson and five other men (reports on number of individuals involved may vary) were charged with a number of felonies, including armed robbery, late last week.  Las Vegas police say Simpson and his co-defendants broke into the hotel suite of a sports memorabilia dealer on Sunday.  According to Simpson, he was attempting to retrieve property that was stolen from him.  However, other sports memorabilia not connected with Simpson was allegedly taken in the theft.  While the former football great was collecting his memorabilia--which included the suit he wore to court the day he was found not guilty of murdering his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman--Las Vegas police also charged that guns were brandished during the robbery.  However, it is not clear if Simpson himself was carrying a weapon.  All the same, Simpson faces robbery, assault, burglary and conspiracy charges (late Tuesday Simpson was charged with kidnapping) as he is incarcerated without bail.

In 1994 a large majority of the African-American community supported Simpson, while many other Americans believed he was guilty of multiple homicides.  The case demonstrated the racial divide which exists in America and many believe that schism still exists today.

In another case, many feel African-American leaders in Durham, North Carolina forced the hand of disbarred prosecutor Mike Nifong who currently is on trial for withholding exculpatory evidence in the rape trial of three Duke Lacrosse players.  In another case, Atlanta football star Mike Vick plead guilty to charges including that he led a dog fighting ring, participated in illegal gambling and was cruel to animals.  Recently on "The View" (ABC-TV) humorist Whoopi Goldberg attempted to excuse Vick's actions, saying that dog fighting was a part of southern black culture.

We see this type of racial selectivity time after time in America today and, sooner or later, someone is going to have to define what this phenomenon is and I believe we are talking about racism.  Now some scholars will disagree by claiming those who have been the victims of cultural racism for hundreds of years cannot themselves be racists, but nothing could be further from the truth.  When a group's color or ethnicity dictates who or what it will favor on the basis of that color or ethnicity it must be called racism.  Webster's Dictionary defines racism as "any program or practice of racial discrimination, segregation, persecution and domination, based on racialism."

The type of racial preference we are seeing by blacks may not be as virulent a form as the South experienced during slavery and throughout the decades when Jim Crow laws dominated the South between 1876 and 1965.  Today there are no lynchings of poor whites in Alabama, there are no laws enforcing the philosophy of "separate, but equal," yet we are seeing the dispensation of justice suffer, exampled by the first Simpson verdict and the prosecution of the white Duke Lacrosse players.

Americans learned a new term during Simpson's first trial.  Something called "jury nullification" essentially meant Simpson would not have been convicted by African-American jurors--even if he walked into court with the blood of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman on his hands.  The theory being blacks had suffered through legal and social injustice since they were first brought to this nation on slave ships, therefore, the release of one guilty black man was partial payment for the injustices of the past.

What makes matters worse is the fact what we are seeing today fits well within the boundaries of political correctness.  Many in the dominant media not only ignored the actions of African-American leaders regarding the Duke rape case, they never chastised those leaders when the truth became known.  It was as though Mike Nifong launched the vendetta against Dave Evans, Reade Seligmann, and Collin Finnerty without any prompting at all.  In fact, Jesse Jackson promised a scholarship to the alleged rape victim as he called for the heads of the three Duke students before it was found the charges were without merit.  When the facts became known, Jackson failed to make any effort to support the falsely accused young men.  Was this because Evans, Seligmann and Finnerty were not African-Americans?

There is no doubt blacks have been the victims of blatant and vicious racism in our nation's past.  But previous injustice should not lead to similar injustice because of a man or woman's skin color.  Liberals often recoil when conservatives quote the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. who yearned for the day when people would be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.  Sadly, it seems America has disregarded this hope.

To date, Jackson and African-American leaders, including the Rev. Al Sharpton, have been silent concerning the latest tribulations facing O.J. Simpson.  However, I fully expect Jackson, Sharpton and others to soon rally behind Simpson, claiming he was the target of racial persecution.

This is the time for some desperate soul-searching surrounding the issue of race in the United States and much of that introspection should come from those who use the issue of race to divide us as a people.

ABC 7 Chicago quotes minister who supports Planned Parenthood clinic for Aurora, but leaves out fact he works for PP

THE TRUTH BEHIND THE NEWS by DAN GURA 

Imagine you are sitting down to a formal dinner at your boss's house.  I mean the big-big boss from out east.  Tonight will make or break the company.  He has spared no expense to impress eight of his biggest clients and their wives; everyone is all decked out to the nines.  A string quartet is playing on the veranda.  There are more diamonds in the room than at a Vegas poker tournament.  The conversation is flowing as smoothly as the expensive wine, when you notice something amiss in the kitchen.

One of the waiters is coughing all over the food and I mean darn near coughing up a lung.  Great cascades of spittle drench every last morsel.

Here is your dilemma.  Do you?

(a) Announce that dinner has been contaminated and that it would be wise to order Chinese instead.

(b) Not say anything and hope the waiter is not contagious with anything too exotic.

(c) Say you're not feeling very well and let everyone else dig in.

(d) Phlegm be damned.  Go on television and proclaim this the greatest dinner party of all time.

Unfortunately, I believe WLS-TV (ABC 7 Chicago) would choose (d).

On September 12th, WLS-TV anchor Ron Magers introduced a 2 minute 53 second segment, Ministers Voice Support for New Clinic, with "There's new support for a controversial plan to open a Planned Parenthood clinic in Aurora.  A group of ministers came out in support of the clinic Wednesday." [Story at: http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=local&id=5655001]

Anchor Leah Hope picked up the story which included a snippet of what Hope introduced as a "group of ministers (who) voiced support for the facility and the organization's mission."  Only one was identified by name, Rev. Randall Doubet-King, who said, "Each year, Planned Parenthood provides tens of thousands of women and families in this region with services they need and deserve to make the choices they need to make."

I am always curious whenever an ordained clergyman takes a stance contrary to God's.  Therefore, I Googled Doubet-King.

I was not surprised to learn he was a retired Pastor with the United Church of Christ, but was amazed to learn exactly in whose bed he chooses to sleep.

On April 23, 2004 Planned Parenthood sent out a press release which announced "Rev. Randall Doubet-King Receives Planned Parenthood Davis Award for Distinguished Service."  It read, "Rev. Randall-Doubet-King is truly an outstanding clergyman and advocate for reproductive rights.  His work with Planned Parenthood Chicago Area has enriched a variety of essential programs and projects and his frequent presence in the press as a pro-choice clergy voice has been an invaluable asset to our movement."

Well, so far, he sure sounds like an unbiased, neutral person to interview.  (NOTE: Sarcasm intended)

It also lists his accomplishments.  "Rev. Doubet-King serves as board chair for Planned Parenthood Chicago Area and chair of their PPFA Vision for 2025 Stewardship Committee."

For WLS-TV News to fail to mention that the "minister" whom they interviewed is not only a shill for Planned Parenthood, but a highly placed cog in their mill's wheel of death is to do a grave disservice to the truth.  Mr. Magers, you have a responsibility to accurately report the fact--all the facts--and Doubet-King's strong ties to Planned Parenthood are facts which should have been reported.

So, Mr. Magers, now that the truth is out will you tell Chicago the whole story?

Dan Gura is a contributing editor to RFFM.org

Apologies to all. Should there be a statute of limitations on apologies? Sounds like a good idea. by Bill Zettler

From the desk of Bill Zettler

Apologies to all.

Since government apologies seem to be more and more popular these days, especially in Blue States, I thought perhaps we should try to standardize and regulate the apology process because I for one am confused.

For example, since Illinois Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn recently apologized to the Mormons for their mistreatment by Illinoisans in 1845, I suggest that Mormons (and all of Utah) receive a certificate authenticating 13 million apologies (1 for each Illinois citizen).

Now, since there are only two million Utahans, they would have 11 million apologies left over that they could use to offset their offenses. For example, recently there was a news story relating how a small business owner in Arizona wanted to move his firm to Utah, but a gay couple that worked for him objected because they believe Mormons discriminate against gays. The Mormons could immediately offset that slight by sending two of their 11 million remaining apologies to the gay couple. In fact, if they were in a generous mood, they could send say 10,000 apologies thus providing the couple with an extra 9,998 apologies for their own use. That couple in turn could then immediately return to Utah 5,000 or so of their extra apologies to offset any hurt feelings that may have been suffered by non-gay-discriminating Mormons.

And perhaps for those left over apologies we could establish a market on eBay. I can see an ad saying something like this: “For Sale: 10 Illinois apologies, slightly used by Mormons, but worth at least 20 mea culpas”.

However, I think we need to control the apology process somewhat by having a statute of limitations of say 1,000 years. This would mean, for example, that Queen Elizabeth would have to apologize to Middle East citizens for Richard the Lion Hearted sending Crusaders slashing and burning through Antioch, Tyre and Jerusalem during the Crusades.  On the other hand, King Abdullah of Jordan, a descendant of a long line of Arab kings, would, in turn, have to apologize to the European Union for beheading various and sundry knights-errant during the same period.

Under this rule, Hungarians would not have to apologize for Attila’s 5th century depredations against the Goths, Lombards and Romans because it would be beyond the 1,000 year statute of limitations. This is a good thing, since finding all those Gothic and Lombardian descendants would be problematic. One thing we don’t want to do is apologize to the wrong person or group. That would defeat the whole purpose and would drive down prices on eBay.

I think as part of our zero-tolerance apology rules we should provide buttons for people like Pat Quinn which say: “I apologize to you if anyone of my race, gender, ethnicity, religion, country, state, county, township, bowling team or species has offended you or your ancestors--unless those ancestors have been dead for over 1,000 years”.

I know that is a lot for one button, but this is important.

That leaves only one remaining issue -– extraterrestrials. I mean do they apologize to us for examining our organs on their spaceships without reading us our Miranda rights or do we apologize to them for dismissively calling them DNA-challenged little green men?

I think I will let Pat Quinn and the UN handle that one.

Bill Zettler is a contributing editor to RFFM.org.

Racist Abortions by Dan Gura

The young black man in the older Buick looked uncomfortable as he waited for the light to change.  He had just dropped off a woman, actually little more than a girl, at Affiliated Medical Services, a/k/a the last abortion mill in Milwaukee, and his escape was stopped, at least temporarily, by a red light.  He stared straight ahead, trying to avoid looking into the eyes of the prayer warriors lining the intersection, each of whom was holding a sign which graphically showed the truth about abortion.

I walked up to his open window said, “If you really loved her, you would you would go inside and not let her kill your baby.”

“It ain’t my baby.  She’s my sister, so it ain’t my problem,” was his surly reply. 

“Then maybe you can answer a question for me.  How come it’s a hate crime if a white man with a Klan hood over his head kills a black man, but it’s okay for a white man with a surgeon's mask over his face to kill a black baby?”

He looked perplexed and dug deeply into his mind for an eloquent answer.  “F--- you!”

He punched the accelerator before I could ask him how it feels to pay a white man to commit genocide on the black race.  His tires spun on the rain dampened street and he shot me an evil look before gaining enough traction to speed away.  Soon the only sign he had ever been there was a thin cloud of blue smoke...and the heart wrenching knowledge that his niece or nephew would be ripped apart inside the mill just a few feet from where I stood.  Another innocent life sacrificed to the bloodthirsty god of choice.

My son and I were witnessing for life with the Missionaries To The Preborn * and we prayed that the mother would change her mind at the last moment and bolt through the door screaming, “I want my baby to live!”  But, alas, it was not to be.

A few minutes later, a deathscort walked out the mill’s door; a smug baby-killing grin plastered across her hard face as she strutted victoriously to the end of the block before resuming her curbside post in front of the mill.  Striking a defiant pose, she stood with her arms crossed like a modern day King Herod as she awaited the mill’s next innocent victim.  She made sure everyone knew that Satan had won another battle.

Affiliated Medical Services performs surgical abortions through the 22nd week of in utero life.  Their web site states, “Surgical abortions are done by vacuum aspiration (suction) and instruments if needed.”  The mother is offered anesthesia options, including twilight conscious sedation anesthesia--no mention is made of anesthesia for the baby who will be torn asunder with instruments and sucked from the womb.

A page of anonymous “patient comments” is provided to reassure the soon-to-be mother of a dead baby that the “experience” will be “as comfortable as possible.”  The most chilling one, however, was “You have given me the gift of choice.  You have put me back in control of my destiny.  And because of your compassion, I will never allow anyone else to choose for me again.”  Curiously, there were no comments from the aborted innocents.

I have often wondered what the reception would be for a man dressed head to toe in a Ku Klux Klan robe and hood standing in front of an abortion mill and holding a sign which read “Thank you for killing your black baby.”   

I can’t help but think the irony of the situation would be wasted on most that saw him. If he wasn’t physically attacked, I’m sure he would be verbally assaulted and decried as a racist...no doubt by the very same black women who were keeping appointments to pay an abortionist to murder their babies.

* www.missionariestopreborn.com   (414) 462-3399

Dan Gura is a contributing editor to RFFM.org