RFFM.ORG

Does Anyone Care That Cubs Suitor Mark Cuban Financed "Redacted"--an Anti-Military Film?

by Dan Gura

On April 2nd, the Tribune Company announced their intention to sell the Chicago Cubs baseball team following the 2007 season.  This decision was made because shareholders compelled the newspaper (TRB: NYSE) to market itself for sale as well as divest certain component parts--including their baseball team.

Like any smart seller in a buyer's market, they spruced up the old ballpark (the second oldest in the major leagues) to make it more saleable.  The long overdue rebuilding of the playing surface at Wrigley Field began immediately after the Cubs were eliminated (in a sweep) from the first round of the playoffs.  The Friendly Confines, which had previously been valued at $90 million, most certainly will now fetch top dollar.

And a potential buyer has stepped forth, one with enough assets to make the team a perennial World Series contender.  Mark Cuban, controversial owner of the NBA's Dallas Mavericks, has expressed a desire to purchase this venerable baseball franchise.  He told ABC News, "when a team that's so iconic and such an amazing team like the Cubbies come up, that's an opportunity I couldn't let slip by."  Cuban reportedly is set to offer $625 million for a team which Forbes magazine valued in 2005 at $448 million (1).  But does the perfect smile which Cuban flashed as a contestant on "Dancing with the Stars" (ABC) hide a darker secret?

The ugly truth is Cuban financed "Redacted" -- a newly released movie which is little more than terrorist propaganda.  Director Brian DePalma, evidently not satisfied with besmirching the good name of American soldiers fighting in Vietnam, has resurrected the script from his 1989 anti-war movie, "Casualties of War."  Sure, he changed the uniforms from jungle green to desert camouflage, but kept the premise the same: evil imperialistic American soldiers rape a girl then go on a killing spree.  What makes Redacted so dangerous is DePalma's style mimics an actual documentary, lending an air of truth and accuracy to what is a stylized, fictional account of a single event in a war which has lasted over four years.  Bill O'Reilly, host of The O'Reilly Factor (FOX NEWS)--the most watched program on cable news--summed up the plot with, it "will incite anti-American hatred around the world."

However, Redacted appears to be a stealth movie, flying under the radar of the American public.  Its theater release hardly caused a ripple--a miniscule worldwide gross of $167,995; $44,651 domestic and $123,344 worldwide--(2) with DePalma choosing instead to release it via pay-per-view and at hotels.  It is clear the movie has found a more receptive audience among those in foreign lands, some of whom mean ill will towards America.

I was curious what Cubs fans would think about their team being bought by a man who invested money in a movie which has the potential of enflaming terrorists (to avenge the movie's premise).  I soon found out it is no easy task to find anyone who has even heard of the movie, let alone Cuban's financial involvement.  Though admittedly unscientific, I began my poll by asking everyone I saw wearing Cubs logo clothing or a jacket their opinion.  To a one, all expressed great excitement about the potential infusion of Cuban cash.  Typical comments were, "I couldn't care less as long as they bring home a winner." (Alfred in Elk Grove Village) and "Who cares as long as he is willing to spend the money to win the World Series." (Kevin in Palatine).

I switched tactics and tried the Internet where I found a site on which the so-called blogging billionaire Cuban invites questions from mere peons.  I e-mailed a series of questions regarding the movie, Cuban's interest in the Cubs and plans for the team--if he is the successful buyer.  To date I have not received a reply from either Cuban or anyone in his employ.

Next I searched every Cubs blog which I could find to see if anyone else had the same curiosity.  Nada.  Was I the only person who cared?

Finally, I found an on-line petition which encouraged Cuban to buy the Lovable Losers.  1,339 Cubs fans had affixed their signatures to said petition.  (Note of hope: In 2007 the Cubs set a franchise attendance record of 3,252,462 -- that means only .0004116 percent of attendees were thus willing to show their support for Cuban buying the team).  Comments were solicited in addition to signatures.  I read every single one of them--Justin Beyer's was typical, "Please Lord, have mercy on us Cubs fans.  Show Mark Cuban the way to the Northside and deliver us from the execs at the Tribune Company."

Though discouraged, I continued reading and had my spirits lifted when I found the eloquent comment left by Laurie McCabe of Virginia who wrote, "To Mark Cuban.  Let me preface this note with I am a doctoral student of behavioral sciences, so you know I am capable and intelligent.  When the Jihadists finally use this movie to kill more Americans, I will think of you CUBAN!  You might be rich, but you are also demented and at the present moment the nemesis of the entire nation..."

Thank you, Laurie.  I'm sure that's a sentiment many others will share.

(1) www.forbes.com/lists/2006/33/Value_1.html  Sorry White Sox Fans, but Forbes said the south siders are only worth $315 million.

(2) www.boxofficemojo.com reports the movie was released at fifteen theatres worldwide and averaged a paltry $1,708 per screen.  Figures current as of November 25, 2007.

Dan Gura is a contributing editor to RFFM.org

Secret Interview: Henry Kissinger Discusses Rock n Roll with Mike Wallace

by Bill Zettler

Recently, CBS news conducted an interview with Bruce Springsteen where the rock n roll star outlined his views on America’s role in international affairs.  Unknown to many people, CBS conducted a parallel interview with Henry Kissinger where the former Secretary of State discussed his views on Rock n Roll. A transcript of that interview follows:

Mike Wallace: Mr. Secretary, thank you for being with us tonite.  As you know, last week we interviewed Bruce Springsteen and asked him to comment on current politics and international affairs.  We thought it only fair that we ask you to talk to us tonite about your knowledge of rock n roll.

Henry Kissinger: That’s cool, dude.

Mike Wallace: Dr. Kissinger, before we start our interview, I have to tell you that is one of the largest diamond ear studs I have ever seen.

Henry Kissinger: Ya, came from the deepest DeBeers mine.  Twelve carats cut off of the bottom of the Hope Diamond.  Got it as part of a consulting contract that prevented civil war in Swaziland

Mike Wallace: Dr. Kissinger, I am forced to ask you this personal question, if I may.  Have you had an operation recently?

Henry Kissinger: Operation? I am healthy as a storm trooper.  I eat lots of beer and sauerkraut, a little gassy, but really good for you.

Mike Wallace: Dr. Kissinger, I am not sure how to put this to you so I will just say it:  A diamond in the right ear indicates you are gay and I know you were recently in Sweden, so I thought perhaps you had had a sex change operation.  If so, we would really like to break that story here on CBS!  We will give the follow up to Dan Rather if you like.

Henry Kissinger: No, no, no.  I vas in Sweden for the Nobel awards, that’s all really!

Mike Wallace: Please, Mr. Secretary, don’t try to tear that diamond out of your ear!  It will really bleed a lot if you do!

Henry Kissinger: OK, how about I just turn down the bill of my baseball cap to that side?  That will cover it until I can get to my botox guy to work on it.

Mike Wallace: I am sure you tuned in last week for the Springsteen interview, didn’t you?

Henry Kissinger: Oh yes, I took a break from writing my latest paper on the relationship between Mao Tse Dung’s Great March through China and the Nuremberg Trials.  Nothing there to compare to Bruce though.

Mike Wallace: We couldn’t agree more.  What part of Springsteen’s comments impressed you the most?

Henry Kissinger: I think it was his extensive knowledge of Mullah Yano, which he mentioned frequently.  I checked with my sources and they knew nothing about him.  Bruce could easily be CIA if he wanted to.  And hats off to Asbury Park High School for their terrific international studies program.  Obviously Bruce must have been their top scholar.

Mike Wallace: Mullah Yano? Mr. Secretary, I think you have confused a term often used by musicians, athletes and movie stars.  It’s “You Know”, y-o-u  k-n-o-w, pronounced “ya no”.

Henry Kissinger: Hmm, then I better call my assistant back from Kabul.

Mike Wallace: OK, Dr. Kissinger, let's get back to rock n roll. In the famous movie “Apocalypse Now” Wagner’s “Flight of the Valkyries” was blasted out from the helicopter gun ships to scare the Viet Cong.  Was that the favorite music in the Nixon White House?

Henry Kissinger: Oh no, when we went into Cambodia with the B52’s President Nixon had “Rock Around The Clock” played in the White House elevators.  A morale booster he called it.  And then when he was forced to leave on that last flight it was “Heartbreak Hotel” on Air Force One.

Mike Wallace: Mr. Secretary, we are running short on time.  Let me ask you what instrument you played.

Henry Kissinger: I played the Alpine Horn.

Mike Wallace: Alpine Horn?  I am not familiar with that instrument.

Henry Kissinger: Oh sure you are.  Think of the Ricola ads with the huge horns. It used to drive my parents nuts when I practiced in the basement with my band.

Mike Wallace: And what was the name of your band?

Henry Kissinger: The “Lederhosen Lightening”.  The chicks really loved us.

Mike Wallace: Dr. Kissinger, thank you.  Is there anything you would like to say in closing?

Henry Kissinger: Ya know dude, my ear hurts.

Bill Zettler is a contributing editor to RFFM.org

Perhaps Atheist Rob Sherman Needs Pity and Prayer, Instead of Condemnation

Perceptions from an Interview by Daniel T. Zanoza

Shortly after atheist Rob Sherman obtained a court order which excluded his daughter's high school from observing the Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act, I interviewed the Buffalo Grove, Illinois resident and came away with some troubling conclusions about what motivates the man.

Recently, the Illinois General Assembly passed SB1463 that would require public school teachers to enforce a moment of silence before each school day begins.  Technically, the bill amends the Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act to require (instead of allow) a teacher to observe a brief period of silence at the opening of every school day [http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/95/SB/09500SB1463.htm].  The moment of silence will be mandatory, but students would be allowed to observe the period in any manner they wish under the new law.

Sherman, who takes great pride in the notoriety he has received in his attempts to remove references to faith from the public square, found a liberal, activist judge who believed the legislation violated the U.S. Constitution.  What were the grounds cited in the judge's ruling?  Amazingly, children would be forced to choose between non-denominational prayer and a moment of reflection.  Forcing young people to make such a decision violates the U.S. Constitution, according to the U.S. Supreme Court case, titled Wallace v. Jaffree.

Of course the ruling is ridiculous because it prohibits students from an opportunity to make a choice and most reasonable people would agree with this premise.  But Sherman justified his actions and the court's subsequent ruling for an additional reason.  Sherman told me if students are allowed to observe a moment of silence before each school day, it would take away from his daughter's Constitutional right to be educated.  Yes, that's what he said--even though the Illinois State Board of Education has yet to lay down the guidelines for how long the moment of silence would be and it could be as short as 30 seconds.  Sherman expected me to believe this was a good enough reason to dismiss the overwhelming will of Illinois residents which was enacted through their legislators.

In essence, Sherman did not care if elected representatives of the people overruled Governor Rod Blagojevich's veto of the bill by a staggering margin.  And Sherman does not care if a vast majority of Americans feel a moment of silence, reflection or prayer would make good sense.

Indeed, even though the law would permit Sherman's daughter to use the allotted time to daydream about her boyfriend or girlfriend (as the case may be), think about the clothes she will wear for the next school day or--heaven forbid--ponder whether there is a Supreme Being, the new edict would clearly have hurt no one.  However, maybe in Sherman's mind, he does not want his daughter or any other student to ponder such deep matters.

Whatever the case, the sad thing about it all is that a single individual can quash the will of so many people and what's even sadder is the fact he is willing to use his daughter to do so.

During my interview with Sherman, I quickly learned the former protégé of noted atheist, the late Madelyn Murray O'Hair, was acting on motivations which had nothing to do with the Constitution or the violation of his daughter's civil rights.  "I've had over 100 articles and columns written about me regarding this issue," said Sherman with a prideful boast.  It suddenly became obvious Sherman does what he does for publicity and self-notoriety.  Period.

Sherman went on to discuss how he was in great demand by members of the media and this seemed to give him great joy.  "So this is all about you?" I asked.  At first Sherman denied the premise of the question.  But, as the interview closed, once again, I put forth the same query and Sherman responded in the affirmative by saying, "I guess so."

It suddenly became frighteningly clear.  Sherman was--and is--willing to put himself above the welfare of not only our nation, but his daughter as well.  It is said Sherman's daughter is a subject of substantial ridicule at her school.  Yet most troubling is the fact a bright young woman is being manipulated by a man who is seeking to fill the empty spaces within his life through celebrity and Sherman does so even though he is not sure of the cause he champions, in my opinion.

I asked Sherman if he thought there was a God.  "I don't know whether there is a god or not," he replied.  I then inquired as to whether Sherman leads his family to share his atheistic beliefs.  "Of course I do.  That's my responsibility as a parent," Sherman responded.  His answer made me shudder because it was evident the man was filling an emotional need at the expense of his loved ones.  At that moment, my opinion of Sherman changed.  Where I once saw him as a political enemy, I know see the man as a forlorn figure, willing to do practically anything to fill the vacancy within his heart.

I am a person of faith.  Like our Founding Fathers, I too believe there is a Creator who gave us the rights we cherish so deeply as Americans.  Therefore, I have decided to take another approach towards individuals, like Sherman, who are willing to be intolerant for self-serving reasons.  Those of us who are driven by faith might use the tools we have been given by God to combat the desires of prideful men.  Maybe prayer for Mr. Sherman and his family might be what the doctor ordered.  It certainly would be consistent with Christian doctrine.

Certainly Sherman and individuals including the late Madalyn Murray O'Hair have hurt our nation via their actions.  Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1962, titled Engel v. Vitale, which removed prayer from public schools, our society has coarsened to an astonishing degree.  Where once running in the hall and chewing gum in class were the most prevalent problems with behavior among young people, today teen-age pregnancy, violence and a general moral decay have swept across our nation like a plague of Biblical proportions.  Pornography fills the minds of young people to the point of addiction.  Drugs and alcoholism have snuffed out countless lives which were laid at the altar of concepts like values clarification and moral relativism.  In 21st century America, the FBI reports, at any given time, over 30 serial killers wander the back roads and highways of our nation, looking for just one more victim.  Combine these societal ills with the tragedy of child abuse and it can be safely said America has been led down a path strewn with destruction.

No, we cannot lay all the blame for these corruptions of our culture at the feet of individuals like Sherman.  The fact these ills may have been caused, in part, by the actions of such people is burden enough for them to bear.  However, understanding what motivates them may help us all come up with positive solutions in the effort to bring sanity back to a society which is still worth saving.

Daley Center Plaza--Site of Life-Sized Nativity Scene For Another Christmas Season

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS -- RFFM NEWS

Thanksgiving traditionally marks the beginning of the Christmas season.  However, with the assault on religious liberty gaining momentum in America, it is hard to find symbols in the public square which signify the true meaning of Christmas.

But there are those who are not ashamed to acknowledge their faith and what the season truly represents to many Americans.  On November 24th, a group of Chicagoland residents erected a Nativity Scene in the Richard J. Daley Plaza at Dearborn and Washington Streets in downtown Chicago.  A group of tradesmen who call themselves the "God Squad" volunteered their time, skills and effort to construct a life-sized manger display to celebrate the birth of Christ.

The "God Squad" volunteers consist of Chicago area trade union members and represent the gamut of Christian denominations.  After construction of the display was completed, a procession was held, culminating in the placing of a figure in the crèche representing baby Jesus.

The manger scene had stood inside Chicago's City Hall since the early years of the Richard J. Daley administration.  However, after Daley's death, the Nativity Scene was moved to its current location because critics asserted the manger display crossed the Constitutional boundaries of church and state. 

Although the Nativity scene was moved to the Daley Center Plaza and is supported solely by private donations, it took a court ruling to allow the annual display to remain at its current location.  In 1989, Judge James B. Parsons ruled the manger scene did not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment, thereby dismissing a lawsuit filed by the American Jewish Congress, the ACLU and Atheists of America.

"Unfortunately, in the past, the Nativity Scene received little attention from the press," said Jim Finnegan who along with Terry Hodges are co-chairmen of the Nativity Scene Committee.  "Previously, the only time we received media publicity was when our baby Jesus statue was stolen.  I think it's important that people can come and see something which represents what Christmas is really all about.  And with the effort of so many wonderful volunteers, this beautiful Nativity Scene is made possible."

After its theft, the baby Jesus statue was eventually recovered from a locker in Chicago's Union Station.

Following the construction of the manger scene last Saturday morning, a brief re-dedication ceremony took place.  A Bell Choir from Mundelein's Santa Maria del Popolo Church performed at the event, which featured a procession of children from throughout Chicagoland.

The Nativity display will stand until December 29th.

To read a complete history of the Nativity Scene in Chicago go to: http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2007/11/a-christmas-tra.html

Captions for photographs:

Top: Daley Center Nativity Scene;  Middle: God Squad Volunteers;  Bottom: Maeve O'Malley carries Christ Child figurine

Note: Click on photos to enlarge.

Silence on Iraq from Dominant Media Means One Thing--Good News

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

Recently, a number of government reports--including data provided by independent organizations--has revealed the situation in Iraq has improved greatly.  From the number of Iraqi citizens killed by insurgents to a huge decrease in American casualties, the surge seems to be working.  However, by monitoring reports from the dominant media, you wouldn't know it.

In fact, during the last two months, there was a sudden drop-off in the number of stories featured on the major network's news broadcasts regarding America's involvement in Middle East conflicts.  It was obvious something was going on because when violence was at its peak in places like Baghdad the mainstream press was all over these doomed-filled reports from the war front.

Things must be getting better, I thought to myself, and I was soon proven right.  The lack of reporting was in direct correlation to the improvement of the situation on the ground in Iraq which seemed to prove criticism levied against the major news networks was valid.

Many of those in the armed forces themselves would frequently complain about the fact the good things happening in the war-torn region were not reported by CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC or their affiliate networks.  This apparent lack of attention to the positive achievements accomplished by United States armed forces and their allies had a definite negative impact on the military's morale, but the allegations of biased journalism was met with indignation and denial from the major news outlets.

Since late summer, when the surge went into full affect, coalition forces seemed to be winning the battle against terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda.  Baghdad is indeed a safer place to be in recent months and it is reported some sections of Iraq's capitol are beginning to return to normal.  The number of Iraqis killed in the battle between religious sects dropped by 50% since the surge.  The number of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) targeting coalition forces and Iraqi citizens fell by 75%.  Sunni chieftains decided to cast out Al Qaeda operatives and join forces with the government-backed military in places like Anbar Province which have become a model for success in the region.

Some serious questions need to be answered by many in the dominant press.  Why has the improving situation in Iraq not been covered?  Is there a political component that is leading to the media's denial and lack of coverage concerning more favorable conditions in Iraq? 

Apparently, many in the media bought into the idea America would lose the Iraq War.  The press intimated the conflict was nothing more than a repeat of the Viet Nam War.  It's possible this mindset has prevented honest journalism from taking place at a time that would benefit the Bush administration and Republicans on the whole.  There are some questions that need to be answered by the press and this issue goes far beyond politics.  It can be safely said some of the coverage we have seen in Iraq has damaged the war effort.  Because of this our nation and its military have suffered and so has the integrity of journalism in America.

Copyright © Daniel T. Zanoza 2007

Are there political high-jinks behind Hastert's refusal to announce a departure date?

RFFM.org Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza

On Thursday, former House Speaker Dennis Hastert gave an emotion-filled speech, announcing his farewell to the august body on which he is seated.  The event was filled with all the hyperbole and political disingenuousness we have all come to know and despise about Washington, D.C.  Even the queen of darkness herself, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, talked about how Hastert and his dignified presence will be missed in the halls of Congress.

I guess we are all supposed to believe the verbal daggers thrown at Republicans by Ms. Pelosi since her coronation were only bits of expected dialogue meant to supply raw meat for her Democratic base.  It was an irritating show for those of us who care about America and wish others would care as much.

But for a moment let's put Ms. Pelosi and the Democrats aside.  Mr. Hastert needs to answer some serious questions as to what his plans are concerning his retirement.

Something very important was missing from Hastert's speech.  He simply must have overlooked the fact that none of us know when he is leaving.  Yeah, that's it.  There's nothing sneaky going on, there couldn't be.  Could there?

Earlier this year, on March 19th, I predicted Hastert's expected retirement in a column I wrote[http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2007/11/lauzen-should-b.html].  I wasn't claiming some sort of monumental scoop because the former Speaker had hinted about his leaving the House of Representatives back in 2006 and reports indicated George W. Bush himself talked the former high school coach to stay on for one more term.  On March 20th, I was contacted and chastised by Hastert's press secretary, Lulu Blacksmith who told me Hastert had not announced his retirement, but I would be one of the first to know when and if he would.  But some strange things have transpired since I wrote that column and the subsequent correction for my technical error three days later [http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2007/11/hastert-has-not.html].

In the early fall, all the major news outlets were reporting Hastert was ready to announce his retirement.  Now without going into the minutiae of how the dominant media works, the story was a definite plant or leak because headlines appeared on the front page of numerous Illinois newspapers the first thing the next morning.  But still no announcement came from Hastert.  It was all simply a misreading of signals, according to some sources, and we would all have to wait even longer for the inevitable.

However, let's put this whole scenario into perspective.  There is a heated race going on to see who will be the Republican nominee to represent the 14th U.S. Congressional District in the general election.  Those sitting on the sidelines are state Senator Chris Lauzen, millionaire milkman Jim Oberweis and a lesser player.  I'm sure all of these individuals would like to know what Mr. Hastert's plans are, don't you think?  But as Hastert's kabuki dance continues, regarding the day he will walk out of the U.S. Capitol building for the last time, the cheese is beginning to ripen and the odor of something that may be less than forthcoming begins to fill the political spaces.  With all this feigning into the line from a seasoned politician, I get the clear impression there is another agenda being played out here and social conservatives, like myself, will intentionally be the last ones to know.

The hard facts are the Illinois Constitution demands that an early retirement by Hastert requires both a special primary and a special election.  The longer Hastert waits to give a hard date for his leaving, the more pressure it puts on certain candidates.  No one can tell me Hastert's balking is a result of his reluctance to experience the associated pain when he leaves his brethren on Capitol Hill.  I believe there is a political motive behind the former Speaker's hesitation and I'll go out on a limb by saying it may be meant to help one candidate.

Here are more facts.  Many of Hastert's campaign staff have joined Oberweis' team.  One would be a fool to look at this development as something that carries no meaning.  Could we soon expect a press conference with Hastert endorsing Oberweis made at the most strategic time for Chris Lauzen not to be able to fight back?  I personally don't like this type of politics, but to date there's no proof some sort of manipulation of the democrat process is at work...except for the obvious.

Mr. Hastert, please tell us when you're going to leave office.  Some of us out here would like to know.  And, by the way, I've never received any promised press releases from Ms. Blacksmith and neither have other conservative web sites and blogs, including Dave Diersen's GOPUSA Illinois and Cal Skinner's McHenry County blog, two very popular Internet sites visited by literally thousands of people every day.  For that matter, I've never received any press releases from Oberweis either, although I have had the pleasure to get an occasional phone call from the millionaire milkman, which resulted in some very stimulating conversations that gave me insight as to his qualifications to be a member of the U.S. Congress.  I'll write about some of those interesting chats at a latter date.

So it's time to cut through the proverbial cheese and get down to brass tacks to use some well-worn clichés that I would hope would be well beneath my literary prowess.  When are you leaving, Mr. Hastert?  We do have a right to know.

Why I No Longer See Dead People At Wrigley Field by Dan Gura

Within hours of the Cubs annual autumn meltdown, something unique and unprecedented occurred at Wrigley Field.  The mocking silence of the billy goat's ghost was replaced by the roar and rumble of cats--bulldozers that is--tearing asunder the sacred turf to install a new drainage system.

An estimated 7,500 tons of dirt will be removed and shipped to "two dumps in DuPage County."  Dump...as in garbage dump?  Intrigued, I spent several hours trying to find out exactly where the dirt is being dumped without success.  Russ Carlton in the Cubs Public Relations office handed me off to Katelyn Thrall, Media Services Coordinator, who wouldn't answer specific questions, such as "Will the dirt be used to cover a sanitary landfill?"  Instead she e-mailed me a "Wrigley Field Renovation Fact Sheet" with a note, "Here is all the information I have at the time."  In my years as a columnist I've learned that anytime an organization big enough to have a Media Services Coordinator won't answer simple, direct questions you should always suspect the worst.  So, I'm betting on garbage dump, where a three to six inch layer of dirt must be applied at the end of each day to keep the smell (methane) down and vermin (rats) from eating organic (rotting food) waste.

That sure doesn't sound like a very glamorous ending for the hallowed mud that Gayle Sayers slugged through to score six touchdowns against the San Francisco 49ers on December 12, 1965.  That game consecrated Wrigley Field's dirt in the heart and soul of every Bears fan.

But it gets worse.  The Chicago Tribune reported that bulldozers savaging the former gridiron unearthed the concrete goal post supports from the south end zone--the very same ones which da Bears used when they beat the New York Giants 14-10 in the 1963 NFL Championship game.  And what was the final disposition of these sacred relics?  Will they be enshrined with reverence in Canton, Ohio at the Pro Football Hall of Fame?   Nope.  "They told me to toss them out," Roger Bossard, who is overseeing the project, said.       

Could the Cubs possibly do anything else to guarantee extending their 100 year curse?

Well, I think they actually found a way to damn the team for all eternity.  What most baseball fans don't realize is there were more than just the lovable losers on the field.  There were the ashes of hundreds, maybe even thousands, of their most loyal fans grinding their way into the fabric of the Cubs uniforms every time a player kicked up a cloud of dust.  Yep, every time Alfonsio Soraino got up and dusted himself off after making a diving catch on the warning track, he was knocking more than mere top soil off his uniform--he was scattering the earthly remains of someone's Uncle Louie and Aunt Mabel to the wind and, if it was blowing just right, into some unfortunate fan's beer.

I'm serious.  For years, the Cubs have permitted families and friends to scatter the ashes of cremated loved ones on the field.  How do I know this for a fact?  When my in-laws were called home to the Lord, their bodies were cremated and their ashes returned to us in simple metal containers. After a suitable mourning period, we were left with the question of what should we do with these last vestiges of their bodies?

Acting on a hunch, I contacted the Cubs and learned that they permitted the scattering of ashes on the outfield warning track.  I was told it was so popular they had to lay down rules.  The ceremony had to be dignified and respectful to both the deceased and the Friendly Confines.  Absolutely no musical accompaniments, other than taps for servicemen, no videotaping, and no alcohol.  And the scattering could only take place on days when the Cubs were on the road.  This seemed like the perfect solution to our dilemma.  Fred and Dot bled Cubby blue.  They watched every game with a fervor unmatched this side of a revival tent.

Thankfully, we opted not to go with the Wrigley Field option, lest they now be residing in a DuPage County dump.

Incredibly, I have not heard a single peep of protest over this desecration of a bona-fide graveyard.  Whilst the media focuses their attention on the Federal Aviation Association's plans to move with respect and dignity the remains of 1,300 now interned at St. Johannes Cemetery--so they can expand O'Hare Field--the final essence of an unknown number of Cubs fans have been callously and capriciously thrown out like mere dirt.  I did some checking and found the weight of cremated remains ranges between 4 to 8 pounds.  Using six pounds as an average and one hundred scatterings a year for two decades that would mean 1,200 pounds of Cub fans remains have been defiled.  Among this truckload of earthly remains are the ashes of legendary first baseman Charlie Grimm (photo) and singer/composer Steve Goodman who wrote the anthem "Go Cubs Go" and, rather appropriately it seems, "A Dying Cubs Fan's Last Request" (poem below).

And what of the Catholics whose ashes were scattered there to await Christ's triumphant return?  The revised funeral rites, Order of Christian Funerals, in use since 1989, specify the cremated remains "should be treated with the same respect we give to the body of the deceased." Somehow being dumped in a DuPage County dump just doesn't seem very dignified.

Next season marks 100 years since the Cubs have won the World Series.  That's a record of failure unmatched by any team, in any sport, anywhere in the world.  Ever.  So whether the Cubs wait until September to collapse, or take back their rightful place as the doormat of the National League on opening day, remember it's neither Bartman nor a billy goat that has cursed them for all eternity, only a lack of respect for their fans--living and dead. 

A Dying Cubs Fan's Last Request

Build a big fire on home plate out of your Louisville Sluggers baseball bats,
And toss my coffin in
Let my ashes blow in a beautiful snow
From the prevailing 30 mile an hour southwest wind
When my last remains go flying over the left-field wall
Will bid the bleacher bums adieu
And I will come to my final resting place, out on Waveland Avenue

Steve Goodman 1983 (awaiting the Rapture in a DuPage County dump)

History of Nativity Scene at Chicago's Daley Plaza by Terry Hodges

On Saturday, November 24th, the God Squad will again erect Chicago's largest and most visible Nativity Scene at the Daley Center Plaza. Construction begins at 9 A.M. with a dedication ceremony and Christmas carol sing along to follow at approximately 10:30.

It is truly an impressive sight to watch dozens of skilled craftsmen construct this reminder of that most magnificent night when the heaven's burst forth in song, “Gloria in excelsis Deo” to announce the birth of the Prince of Peace.

But our crèche represents more than the birth of our Saviour. It is a testimony to the Constitution's guarantees of the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech and the right of the people to peacefully assemble. Most Chicagoans have no idea how close we came to losing these rights. Terrance Hodge's history of the Nativity Scene shares the details of how a few brave men stood up to City Hall. This is one of the first tellings of an epic battle by a group of persecuted Christians--Catholic and Protestant--against the Chicago political machine. Thanks to them, every knee can bend in prayer on public property.

Lest ye thinks this is no big deal, the town of Berkley, Michigan last wek voted down an amendment which would have allowed a Nativity Scene on the lawn outside city hall.

                                                    --  Dan Gura  --

HISTORY OF NATIVITY SCENE AT CHICAGO'S DALEY PLAZA by TERRY HODGES

In 1985, for as long as anyone could remember, the City of Chicago had always erected a nativity scene in the lobby of City Hall each year during the Christmas season. The display was there every year--in times of war and peace, through good times and bad. It was a warm and welcome sign to anyone entering City Hall from the cold of Chicago's Decembers that the Christmas season had arrived and was duly recognized out of respect for the Christian heritage of the United States of America and the people of Chicago.

However, by 1985, a sea change had occurred in Chicago politics and the moral climate as well. After the death in 1976 of long time mayor Richard J. Daley, a devout Roman Catholic, the office of mayor was held in succession by two of his protégés, Michael Bilandic and Jayne Byrne. In 1983, Harold Washington became Chicago's first black mayor. Mayor Washington kept his campaign pledge to make significant changes in city government, including the selection of a new cabinet. One of his appointments was a rather arrogant attorney named Judson Miner to the position of Corporation Counsel, the head of the city's legal department.

In a letter dated October 22, 1985, Sylvia Neil, Midwest Legal Director for the American Jewish Congress requested the City of Chicago not allow the erection of the nativity scene in the lobby of City Hall. The American Jewish Congress eventually sued the City over the issue and lost. However, upon appeal, the 7th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals overturned the lower court's decision in a 2-1 opinion written by Judge Flaum on August 18, 1987. Judson Miner said the City of Chicago would not appeal.

When news broke that City Hall was ending the time-honored tradition of a having a nativity scene in the lobby at Christmas, a group of Chicagoans headed by William Grutzmacher and a black minister, the late Rev. Hiram C. Crawford, went to the office of Judson Miner requesting an explanation of his position in support of the order to remove the nativity scene. Miner refused to meet with the group until Mr. Grutzmacher informed a secretary that if Miner did not allow them into his office and meet with his group, they had better call the police because they would refuse to leave City Hall until Miner spoke with them. Finally, Miner admitted them to his office and told them besides violating the principle of separation of church and state, it was "time to get rid of that thing."

Mr. Grutzmacher's group decided if the City of Chicago government was going to evict the Christian holiday display from City Hall, they would erect their own across the street in the Daley Center Plaza--public property long used as a venue for expression of free speech including political demonstrations. He applied for and received a permit from the Public Building Commission to place a nativity scene in Daley Plaza. Grutzmacher purchased a relatively small nativity scene set and a group of volunteers erected it in Daley Plaza and took turns standing guard. In a move that shocked the world, the Public Building Commission, yielding to pressure from the American Jewish Congress, reversed itself and ordered county employees to demolish the nativity scene late one afternoon--just in time for TV news crews to film the entire episode. Pictures of government employees demolishing the set and struggling with Grutzmacher and his volunteers over the little statues made prime time news around the world. Angry calls of protest came from as far away as Germany by people who could not believe this could happen in America.

In case number 87 C 10746, Grutzmacher v. Public Building Commission, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Senior Federal District Judge James B. Parsons ruled on Dec. 4, 1989 that the Public Building Commission was enjoined from discriminating against all forms of religious expression and ordered the Public Building Commission to permit Grutzmacher to erect a nativity scene display during the Christmas season. This expensive lawsuit was won against opposition from the American Jewish Congress, ACLU, American Atheists, and the circulators of a petition opposing the nativity scene signed by the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, Catholic Archbishop of Chicago.

In 1996, William Grutzmacher retired and moved from the Chicago area. Before leaving, he contacted two friends, Jim Finnegan and Terry Hodges, about continuation of what had become a Christmas tradition every year in Daley Plaza: display of one of the largest nativity scene sets in the world. They agreed this wonderful tradition of keeping Christ in Christmas should continue and made the moral and financial commitment it would.

The Nativity Scene Committee has pledged to continue to erect this display in Chicago's Daley Plaza every Christmas with the help of a group of volunteer tradesmen that has become known as the "God Squad." The Nativity Scene Committee depends upon the grace of God and the generosity of those who wish to keep Christ in Christmas.

Donations are most welcome and may be sent to the Nativity Scene Committee, 11811 Will-Cook Road, Palos Park, IL 60464. E-mail inquiries to: [email protected]

UPDATE: In 2008 for the first time in history a Nativity scene stood in Illinois' state capitol Rotunda Building. This year (2009) the Nativity scene display will again stand in Springfield sponsored by the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee (SNSC). Those who would like to contribute to the SNSC can make a check or money order payable to the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee and mail their donation to: SNSC, Dan Zanoza, Chairman, 904 21st St., # 71, Lincoln, IL 62656 For those who would like to make a tax deductible contribution to the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee and have a PayPal account, please go to the Thomas More Society's (TMS) web page http://www.thomasmoresociety.org/ and click on "Donate". Those who electronically contribute to the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee through the TMS website should make a special notation that their donation is meant for the Springfield Nativity Scene. For more information about the Springfield Nativity Scene go to: http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2009/11/aclu-again-not-challenging-springfield-illinois-nativity-scene-isnt-that-special-it-is.html or send an e-mail to: [email protected] NOTE: The Chicago Nativity Scene and the Springfield Nativity Scene displays are not officially connected. The sponsoring groups are two separate entities. Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: [email protected]

Pat Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani: Sad Plea for Attention from Politically Irrelevant Man

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

On Wednesday, Christian Broadcasting Network founder, Pat Robertson (photo), gave Rudy Giuliani his endorsement in the race for the Republican Party's presidential nomination.  Robertson's announcement came as a surprise to many political observers who believe the TV evangelist's position on social issues were not compatible with those of the former New York Mayor.

Giuliani graciously accepted Robertson's endorsement.  Robertson said the most important issues facing America were terrorism and the defeat of Democrats.  Robertson's backing of Giuliani also came as a shock to the other men seeking the GOP's presidential nomination.  However, under further scrutiny, Robertson's announcement made perfect sense--for reasons other than politics.

In 1998, Pat Robertson stunned the nation when he won the Michigan primary in his own bid to gain the Republican Party's presidential nomination.  Robertson ultimately lost out to the eventual nominee and future president, George H. W. Bush.  But, it is safe to say, Robertson was at the pinnacle of his political influence in America at that time.  In recent years, Robertson's influence with the so-called religious right has waned.  Indeed the only time the dominant media pays attention to the evangelical leader is after Robertson makes a controversial statement.

The Republican Party itself has deferred less and less to Robertson during the presidency of George H. Bush and he was quickly fading from political relevance in America.  I believe Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani is nothing more than a sad attempt to regain the public spotlight.  After Robertson's press conference on Wednesday, his name was mentioned on every major news network and political talk show.  The press saw Robertson's backing of Giuliani as a major development within conservative politics.  But nothing could be further from the truth.  Robertson's decision to endorse Giuliani merely proved the views of the former Christian leader are practically irrelevant among social conservatives.

Robertson has sacrificed many of the issues he claimed to fight for in his attempt to, once again, bask in the public limelight.  Giuliani supports abortion rights, supports homosexual "marriage" and is a strong opponent of Second Amendment rights.  Robertson seems willing to overlook all of these "flaws" within the former New York Mayor's political character, in order to do what?  To get his name on the lips of the media just one more time.  It is a sad statement about what motivates some men.

However, there may be another reason behind the obvious madness regarding Robertson's endorsement.  If Giuliani were to garner the nomination and went on to win the White House, the founder of "The 700 Club" would obviously find himself in a great position with the new President.  Indeed Robertson, in such a scenario, might be the only leader of the so-called religious right to be on Giuliani's short list of political favorites.  But I believe this is a reach of the most serious folly by Robertson.  In the first place, Giuliani will never win the presidency without the full-fledged support of the conservative base within the GOP and he will never get that support.  If Giuliani does not win the presidency, Robertson's position among religious conservatives will fall greatly, to say the least. 

It is sad when an athlete stays on past their prime.  The same can be said about public figures who, in the attempt to stay relevant, essentially turn on their life's work and tarnish their legacy.

As an ordained minister, perhaps Pat Robertson should think more about being true to himself and the God he serves than worry about his ego and public persona.  Robertson's decision will not help Rudy Giuliani's bid to gain the Republican Party's presidential nomination.  Indeed Robertson may have energized those who believe Giuliani would be the worst thing to happen to the social conservative movement in America.  I think they are right.

Pensions Gone Wild: 26 Million Obscene Reasons To Reform Illinois Public Pensions

From the Desk of Bill Zettler *

Gary Catalani, District 200, $9.49 million; James Hintz, Stevenson District 125, $8.63 million; and Mary Curley, Hinsdale District 181, $8.20 million: total $26.32 million due in pension payments over their expected lifetimes.

Starting pensions beginning at age 56? Catalani $214,000, Hintz $209,000 and Curley $189,000. Ending annual pension at age 83 (their life expectancy at age 56) is $484,000, $472,000 and $423,000 respectively. How does that compare to your 401K?

Average salary increase over the last three years of their employment, ending at about age 56? Catalani 74%, Hintz 99% and Curley 80%. And keep in mind, during those last three years, neither their title nor their responsibilities changed. Sounds better than a cost-of-living increase, doesn’t it?

For those of you reading this who are about the same age as these three individuals, do you know anyone in your company, industry or profession who has this kind of end-of-career salary increase? If no, then you have to ask: Why do public employees have them?

These people are not alone, of course. As of 2006 over 1,800 retired Illinois public employees had pensions of over $100,000 per year. Of the Top 100, 94% were educators. The $100,000 pension list is growing by 25% per year here in Illinois, meaning, if that rate continues, in 10 years there will be over 14,000 former public employees with taxpayer-funded $100,000 plus pensions.

And, as bad as that seems, it will get worse if the Illinois Federation of Teachers has it their way. One of their legislative initiatives is a retirement plan called “30, 80 and out”. That’s full retirement after 30 years--instead of 35 and 80% of their salary--instead of 75%. That means a teacher or administrator could retire at 51 years of age with a pension equal to 80% of their four highest years salary.

If that were in effect for the $26 million dollar trio above, we would have to change the title to “36 Million Obscene Reasons To Reform Illinois Public Pensions” since the dynamic trio would average $12 million each in taxpayer-funded pension payouts--NOT including any health benefits they might receive in addition to their pensions. In other words, taxpayers would be stuck with another $10 million just for three public employees, if the “30, 80 and Out” plan was implemented. But remember that’s $10 million more “for the kids” so don’t worry about it.

The other key issue here is the fact these three (and all teachers K-University) never took any risk to become millionaires. First of all, there was never any job risk because they worked under tenure for most of their careers and, later, under contract as administrators. And because taxpayers guarantee their pensions there is no investment risk either. One of them should write a book called, “How to Become a Multi-millionaire Without Ever Taking A Risk”.

So, here are 26 million reasons to implement Social Security and 401K programs for all public employees. How many more do we need?

Bill Zettler is a contributing editor to RFFM.org