RFFM.ORG

Would Romney Fire Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, If He Had The Chance? Sure Looks Like It!

Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

Whoever you may support for the Republican or Democratic presidential nomination this year, there's one thing that is absolutely certain.  Your head would explode, if you tried to keep track of all the subplots and political intrigue which is taking place in both Parties.

For the first time in 80 years, neither the President or the sitting Vice-president is seeking their Party's nomination.  That means we are seeing political races in both Parties like never before.  History is literally unfolding before our very eyes.  However, one of the more seedy subplots involves the candidacy of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and his relationship to Republican power brokers which primarily developed after the campaign of Sen. Fred Thompson never left the ground.  Romney is the obvious favorite of the GOP elite in Washington, D.C. now that Thompson and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani have bowed out of the race.  It is also apparent Romney may be currying favor with remnants of the Illinois Combine, the state power brokers who were in their heyday during the gubernatorial administrations of Jim Thompson, Jim Edgar and George Ryan.

But how could one do such a thing, pray tell.  Here's an idea.  Attack an individual who supposedly did wrong to both factions of the GOP--the Washington, D.C. movers and shakers, and those who run the show or, at least, want to keep running the show in Illinois.

Someone in the Romney campaign must have thought it was a lightening bolt from the political gods that gave them the idea to go after the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, Patrick Fitzgerald.  You see, Fitzgerald--through no choice of his own--was appointed to investigate the outing of so-called covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson.  The case was bogus, involving who told which reporter what and when about a secret agent who wasn't so secret.  But Fitzgerald had to do his job and Scooter Libby, an aide to Vice-president Dick Cheney, was convicted of perjury and a big to do about nothing was over.  From the beginning, the Valerie Plame Wilson case was solely media-generated, in an attempt to discredit George W. Bush's administration and had nothing to do with outing CIA agents or jeopardizing America's security.  Fitzgerald was stuck with a bogus investigation and most of those involved would agree with this assessment.

However, there are those connected with the White House and Vice-president Dick Cheney who thought Fitzgerald should have rolled over and fallen on the sword himself.  In Illinois, the story is completely different.  Fitzgerald has been a virtual pariah to those connected with the Illinois Combine and they look at him as Darth Vader incarnate.

The only problem is most Illinois residents think Patrick Fitzgerald has done an excellent job as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois.  I guess, that is, everyone except people like former Illinois Governor George Ryan--who is sitting in a Wisconsin federal prison at this moment.  And there are other big fish in Fitzgerald's frying pan of justice who are just about ready to be served up for prosecution.  Romney, however, took the bait of Fitzgerald's detractors and has intimated he would fire the well-respected prosecutor--if he were elected president. 

On June 15, 2007 Romney told political reporter Andy Shaw of WLS-TV (ABC 7 Chicago), "They proceeded with the investigation knowing that there was no crime to pursue, and I think that abuse of prosecutorial discretion justifies a very careful look at a possible change."

Even earlier in the campaign, Romney made Fitzgerald a target of his wrath.  During a Republican debate held on May 3rd of last year, Romney went into a virtual tirade about the prosecutor who went after Libby.  While not mentioning Fitzgerald by name, it was clear who Romney was talking about and in post-debate analysis, MSNBC's Chris Matthews did enlighten the viewing audience by saying Fitzgerald was the target of Romney's outrage.

"The famous varmint hunter, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, implied he’d pardon Libby and he personally attacked the special  prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago, an attack that will win Romney points among the GOP power brokers in the Illinois Combine now under federal investigation." wrote John Kass in a Chicago Tribune column June 7, 2007.

Besides trying to please the powers that be, Romney's position on Fitzgerald is in contrast to those held by one of his challengers for the Republican Party's presidential nomination, Sen. John McCain.  During an interview with the Chicago Tribune's editorial board, McCain said of Fitzgerald, "I’d keep him.  I’d keep him.  Because I think he has a record of pursuing criminals, and he has done so, with efficiency and skill and with dedication.  I think he has done a good job, and I think the American people are crying out for having this corruption cleaned up."

Now those who read my columns regularly know I have some strong differences with John McCain over many issues.  But McCain hit the nail right on the head with his assessment of Fitzgerald.  The question is: Did Romney start his attacks on the federal prosecutor because he thinks Fitzgerald wasted tax-payer dollars or is he simply ignorant of the work Fitzgerald has done here in Illinois?  Of course, there's one more scenario, which goes something like this.  Romney is full aware of Fitzgerald's dogged prosecution of corruption in Illinois and that's just the problem.  Perhaps the reason why the Republican elite is so enamored with Romney of late is because there will be a pay-off at the end of the presidential rainbow.  If Romney were elected president, Patrick Fitzgerald would be gone and some big problems facing former and current members of the Illinois Combine might go away with him.

As someone used to say, "what a revoltin' development."  If you were an individual waiting to receive relief from the GOP's nomination of Mitt Romney for president, because he might take care of some of those pesky lawyer bills, McCain's victory in Florida certainly puts Mr. Romney in a bind and even his pockets may not be deep enough to buy himself out of it.  It seems no matter how hard they try, the movers and the shakers in the GOP just can't get it right.  And after all their maneuvering, the Republican elite may just end up with its worst nightmare...John McCain in the White House.  And keep this very quiet because some might get upset by hearing it...Patrick Fitzgerald would remain the prosecutor for the Northern District of Illinois.

Alka Seltzer, anyone?

****************************** 

Some information found on Cal Skinner's McHenry County Blog:  http://www.mchenrycountyblog.com/

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: [email protected] 

RFFM.org's Daniel Zanoza on WCRA Radio [Jan. 29th]

Daniel Zanoza, the Founder and Executive Director of RFFM.org, will be interviewed on WCRA Radio (1090 AM and 104.7 FM) by William Bence, the morning show host and book reviewer, starting at 8:05 A.M. on Tuesday morning, January 29th. 

Zanoza will be discussing the presidential race in both political parties.  Zanoza will also share his thoughts on Illinois politics, including the battles being waged in important primaries across the state.

WCRA Radio cannot be streamed and the broadcast will only be heard by those in the Effingham, Illinois area.

Above photo of Dan Zanoza

Anyone wishing to receive e-mails from RFFM.org can write: [email protected] 

Social conservatives can only blame themselves, if they are cut out of GOP presidential picture

Commentary by Daniel T Zanoza, Executive Director

I know I'm going to regret this because every time I talk about my favorite political candidates, e-mails from RFFM.org readers with differing views come in like ants at a picnic.  Because of my political opinions, one day I'm called one of the most articulate men on the face of the earth and a week later I'm being compared to one of the greatest idiots of all time.  It gets even worse, but my life is pretty good, so I can't complain.  What I've learned about politics is you can't please everyone any of the time, no matter how hard you try.

However, there is something that needs to be said about this year's battle for the Republican presidential nomination.  The best social conservative in the bunch is former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.  You might disagree with his economic policies, including his support of the Fair Tax initiative.  You might disagree with how he governed a state that was dominated by a Democratic legislature and you might not agree with his failure to blindly agree with economic globalism--which some of us feel has hurt the U.S. middle-class.  Yet there is one thing which cannot be disputed.  Mike Huckabee would support a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw abortion in America.  Huckabee would support a Constitutional Amendment that would define marriage as being solely between one man and one woman.  And Huckabee would build a fence, in order to stop the flow of illegal immigrants over our nation's border with Mexico.  None of his opponents are so strong on all three of these social issues.

If you disagree with Huckabee's positions on abortion, gay "marriage" and illegal immigration, then he's not your man.  If a global economy and sustaining corporate wealth are your priorities, then Huckabee would probably rate very low on your list of individuals seeking the GOP's nod for the presidential election in November.

In a previous column, I listed some of the issues social conservatives should be concerned with regarding the candidacies of John McCain, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani.  John McCain voted for government-funded research on embryonic stem cells and, if he is elected president, a bill which would provide funding for this kind of "mad science" would cross his desk in the first 100 days and he would sign it.  With all the problems some of us had with George W. Bush, the man stood by his guns and vetoed such legislation.  McCain would support it.

John McCain also had a plan to give "amnesty" to the 12 million illegal immigrants who now reside in the United States.  McCain now says he's heard the American people and he would "secure the border first."  Yet McCain hints at giving some sort of special treatment to the illegal immigrants who have broken the law by entering this country, literally under the darkness of night.  And John McCain's position on the appointment of federal judges is not as solid as many think.  I don't believe we would see a Judge Roberts, Scalia or Thomas nominated by President John McCain.

In a way, McCain is a man of compromise.  One of his best friends in the U.S. Senate is Joe Lieberman.  Indeed, some have speculated on whether McCain might choose Lieberman as his running mate, if nominated.  Lieberman is a pro-abortion, anti-gun, big government Democrat and the fondness these two men have for each other should send a shiver down the spine of pro-family conservatives.  Of course, McCain can have a friendship with a Democrat, especially Lieberman, because he seems to be a good man at heart.  But Lieberman still supports the right to kill the innocent unborn and someone once gave me good advice when they said you can judge an individual's character by the company they keep.

Mitt Romney is the co-front runner in the Republican Party, at least the media would like you to believe so.  FOX News loves him.  Well, FOX News loves everyone--except Mike Huckabee.  However, Mitt Romney only recently has seen the light when it comes to abortion, special rights for homosexuals, Second Amendment rights and ... I could go on and on.  The fact is Mitt Romney was a pro-abortion, pro-"gay" governor from Massachusetts--before he decided to run for the presidency as a Republican.  If he would have decided to switch parties and become a Democrat, Romney would be in favor of abortion rights, gay "marriage" and gun control at this very moment.  Florida would be deluged with ads proclaiming the need for change and calling for U.S. troops to vacate IRAQ asap, including a statement saying,  "I'm Mitt Romney and I approve this message."

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how a 50 something year old man can suddenly realize he was wrong about abortion his entire life, unless he went through some sort of spiritual transformation.  To my knowledge, Mitt Romney is a Mormon, was a Mormon when he ran for governor of Massachusetts and was a Mormon when he was 20 years old and attending the finest schools money could pay for.  Some might buy Romney's miraculous Epiphany.  Excuse me for using the word "buy" because every time I think of Romney, the words buy or purchase seem to enter my mind.  In any case, I'm not going for it.  But some social conservatives undoubtedly have and will.  Caveat emptor.

Then, there's the "president" of New York, Rudy Giuliani.  The FOX News Channel's favorite son kept us safe after 9-11, didn't he?  Or did he allow thousands of New Yorkers to be exposed to deadly toxins, including the brave fire fighters who searched Ground Zero after that fateful day.  Did Giuliani's ignorance make the 9-11 disaster worse?  Well, the study is still out concerning that issue, but it doesn't look good for the former "president" of New York.  Imagine, we could have Senator Hillary Clinton of New York vs. Rudy Giuliani of New York -- with current Mayor Mike Bloomberg of New York running as a third Party candidate in November's presidential election.  Those of us in "fly-over country" might as well pack our bags because it sure doesn't look like any of these individuals would represent us.

Giuliani's record on abortion; rights based on how you have sex; gun control; and support for sanctuary cities would make him a great nominee for the Democratic Party.  In fact, he might be a bit too far to the left for even Democrats.  And Giuliani may have to bring his politics regarding social issues back in line with the voters in Central Park...oops, I meant the central part of our country.  Seriously, the fact John McCain and Mitt Romney are the so-called front runners among Republicans proves one thing.  The GOP elite cares little about social conservatives and the issues which motivate them.  These power brokers only tolerate pro-family Republicans, even though, without this important political voting bloc, the GOP would lose every election from now until doomsday.

Therefore, the strategy was obvious when it looked like Mike Huckabee would become the clear leader for the Republican Party's presidential nomination as the race moved to South Carolina last week.  At that time, every political observer knew Fred Thompson had little or no chance of waging a serious campaign.  Thompson was falling in the polls every day and he should have stepped out of the race after Michigan.  Thompson is a good man and would have been a fine pro-family advocate in the White House.  However, it was clear he didn't have the will or the want to do what was necessary to be a viable candidate and it was painfully obvious.

The Republican Party did have a mission for Sen. Fred Thompson, however and he may not have been a willing participant, at least I hope not.  I would guarantee you there were high-ranking Republicans encouraging Thompson to stay in the race until South Carolina, even though the polls indicated Thompson might have trouble finishing third in that state.  Why did the Republican elite want Thompson in the race so badly?  The results of the South Carolina Republican primary answered that question.  Thompson took away many of the votes that would have gone to Huckabee.  Again, Thompson finished third in South Carolina, but he did just enough damage to Huckabee to allow John McCain to claim a razor thin victory.  It was a shrewd, calculated political effort, something that Karl Rove would be proud of.  Indeed, he might have thought of it.  However, it did one thing.  The South Carolina outcome took much of the wind out of Huckabee's sails as the Party headed for Florida.  The results also hurt Mike Huckabee's fund-raising efforts.

You see, Huckabee supporters are not the big high-rollers, money-wise, within the GOP.  Those who support Huckabee, according to exit polling, are middle-class, poor pro-family conservatives and many of those who were formerly called Reagan Democrats.  These are blue collar workers, perhaps steel workers from Pennsylvania or Ohio who have fallen upon hard times as their jobs left the U.S. for foreign shores.  In contrast, Romney, McCain and Giuliani receive their support from either corporate-related sources or Republicans with extremely deep pockets.  Even though Huckabee finished a very close second to McCain in South Carolina, the Republican Party, with the help of the press, essentially said Huckabee's chances were over.

Saying much more would lead us all into the deep and dark chasms of inside politics where it is not important to go at this time.  Yet there is a failure by some in the Republican elite to realize the conviction of pro-family conservative voters and the fact there are indeed poor Republicans or let me call them financially-challenged to be politically correct.  Whatever the case, this voting bloc will not sacrifice its values and, if Rudy Giuliani becomes the Republican Party's nominee, this group will either hold their nose while voting or sit out the election entirely.  The GOP elite in Washington, D.C. don't understand such moral conviction and they probably never will.

You may be asking the million dollar question.  Why would the braintrust of the Republican Party, including members of the media--like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter--be so adamantly against Huckabee?  To that matter, why would FOX News, the supposed fair and balanced network, along with the dominant media try to derail Huckabee's campaign?  I know what you're thinking...I'm paranoid.  But, it is said there is no such thing as paranoia, if the danger is real.  Big money Republicans believe Mike Huckabee just might build a fence along the border with Mexico, stopping the flow of illegals into the United States.  How would this hurt them, you ask.  It would hit big business right in the pocket book.  Illegal immigrants supply many huge corporations with cheap labor which depresses the earning power of poor Americans--black and white.  But it's cheap labor all the same.  The fence would also stop the flow of drugs into the United States.  If that happened, what would we do with all the judges and lawyers and prosecutors and ... you get the idea.  Narcotics has become an institution in America and much of that flow comes across our border along the Rio Grande.  Huckabee would also question some of our trade with countries like China which--while devaluing the dollar--build up their military and take more jobs away from Americans.

It's not that Huckabee would raise taxes as the "Club for Growth" claims.  Huckabee has pledged not to do so.  John McCain hasn't.  But McCain is part of the good ole boys club and his membership in the Senate gives him a pass, even though his record regarding taxes and Republican allegiance can surely be questioned.

Finally, Huckabee would probably truly press for a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion.  That industry earns billions of dollars for doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and the insurance industry.  These are mighty forces Huckabee has arrayed against him, not to mention the IRS--which Huckabee pledges to abolish.  What about the tax lawyers, prosecutors, and companies like H + R Block who depend on the confusion generated by the antiquated and complicated tax code?  And let's not forget about the media.  Every time Huckabee has risen to the top of national polls, you've never heard about it.  Indeed, today Huckabee is ranked second--by one of the major pollsters.  But what's the best way to make sure a candidacy fails?  Simply ignore it.  On Hannity + Colmes (FOX News) last week, Sean Hannity said Huckabee had dropped out of the race in Florida.  This was an outright lie, but it was consistent with the FOX News Channel's first plugging Rudy Giuliani, then Mitt Romney, then Fred Thompson and now FOX is back on the Romney bandwagon because Roger Ailes, the network's CEO, dislikes McCain almost as much as Huckabee.

So that's it.  Social conservatives who haven't done their homework will end up getting what they deserve in either John McCain or Mitt Romney.  It's a sad story, but, in a way, it tells us who's really running the show in America and, folks, it's not us.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: [email protected]

Oberweis a "no show" for two important debates with Lauzen and cancels appearance at important GOP event

Critics speculate whether the millionaire dairy owner may be over confidant in his bid to win GOP primary

RFFM.org NEWS EXCLUSIVE Aurora--RFFM.org has learned Jim Oberweis, a candidate for the14th U.S. Congressional District's Republican nomination, has missed two important debates with his main challenger Sen. Chris Lauzen.  Oberweis was scheduled to debate Lauzen on Thursday, January 24th on Chicago Tonight (WTTW - Channel 11 - PBS).  Oberweis canceled his appearance on Chicago Tonight, but Lauzen did make the broadcast.  Lauzen and Oberweis are seeking the Republican nomination in a district vacated by former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert.

Just hours before the scheduled debate, RFFM.org contacted Chicago Tonight's host Phil Ponce who confirmed Oberweis would not appear on Channel 11 that evening as previously scheduled.  Ponce did confirm Lauzen was planning to appear on the PBS network affiliate in Chicago and the show did go on without the participation of Oberweis.

On Friday morning, another debate was to be aired on WRMN Radio (Elgin, Illinois).  The station, which broadcasts to all or a vast majority of the 14th Congressional District, was caught off guard when Oberweis did not appear.  Sen. Lauzen told RFFM.org the station managers and producers were waiting for Oberweis to walk in the door at any minute, but he failed to appear.  RFFM.org attempted to contact WRMN Radio management, but the station's business office was closed for the weekend.

RFFM.org has also learned Jim Oberweis has canceled a scheduled appearance at the Illinois College Republican Federation's Annual Convention which will be held at the Chicago Hilton & Towers on Saturday, January 26th.  According to a blurb posted on Dave Diersen's GOPUSA Illinois e-newsletter, as late as January 17th Oberweis was scheduled to attend the event, among other guests.  In another press release dated January 25th, Oberweis' name was removed from the list of attendees which included Sen. Chris Lauzen; Sen. Bill Brady (Bloomington); Andy McKenna (GOP State Party Chairman); Cook County Commissioner, Tony Peraica; Fran Eaton, Illinois Review and United Republican Fund; and U.S. Senate candidates Mike Psak and Dr. Steve Sauergberg.

Illinois College Republican Federation organizers did not explain why Oberweis canceled his appearance at the annual event, apparently within the last week.

"If Mr. Oberweis believes he has the Republican nomination in his hip pocket, he is either very confident or extremely naive, and that's putting it mildly," said a well-respected Republican activist.  "Perhaps there is a personal crisis going on in his life and, in that case, he should have the sympathies of us all.  However, if there is something going on of such personal magnitude where he is forced to cancel three important events on three consecutive days, the public is entitled to know."

The criticism of Oberweis didn't stop there.  A resident of the 14th District told RFFM.org, "I wanted to see the two men explain how they differ on the issues and I was disappointed when Oberweis didn't show up on Channel 11.  Then I thought I could catch the debate on the radio and again Mr. Oberweis didn't show.  I know things can come up and I'd like to give him the benefit of a doubt.  Right now I don't know what to say or think."

RFFM.org attempted, but was unsuccessful, in contacting the Oberweis campaign regarding his failure to attend the two debates on Thursday and Friday and the cancellation of his appearance at the GOP function on January 26th.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: [email protected]

Does the Chicago Tribune think pro-lifers are stupid or do front page stories advance a pro-death agenda?

Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director 

At first I was amazed.  A friend called and told me he had picked up a copy of that day's Chicago Tribune and its front page story (above the fold) was about abortion, written by Tribune staff reporter Judy Peres ("Abortions at 30-year low: Illinois sees large drop: 19% in 5 years" January 17, 2008 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-abortion_17jan17,1,6923007.story).

"Great," I said to my friend without giving much thought to the subject, besides the fact a mainstream media source was dealing with the issue of abortion and on its front page to boot.  But after that brief moment, I decided to call Illinois Right to Life's Executive Director, Bill Beckman, who was quoted in the Tribune piece.  Fate must have been at work here because I hadn't read the article myself and I didn't know the Tribune had contacted Beckman for his thoughts on the article's subject matter.  Isn't it funny how things happen for a reason.

Beckman and I got into a detailed conversation about whether abortions were truly down in Illinois and the United States.  Then something came to me.  Why was the Chicago Tribune telling its readers that fewer abortions were taking place in America and why now.  It suddenly became clear, like the sun burning off the morning fog on a summer's day.

There is more than one reason why a far left-leaning publication like the Chicago Tribune would trumpet the fact abortions may (or may not) be down across the nation.  It's the election season, isn't it?  The subject of abortion is bound to play a significant role in not only the political primaries, but in November's general election as well.  Plus, with Peres writing this article just days before the commemoration of the U.S. Supreme Court decision, titled Roe v. Wade, which legalized the practice in 1973, what better way to make readers believe the issue is going away.

If I could have written my own headline for the Chicago Tribune story, it would have read something like this:  "No need to worry about abortion any longer, pro-lifers / Confusing statistics on abortion should distract you from issue."  Now, of course, the Chicago Tribune wouldn't be that frank or, dare I say, honest.

Why am I so cynical, you may ask.  You see, in the past, there have been many stories about abortion which were worthy of front page coverage in the Tribune and other newspapers in America.  For example, on the 30th commemoration of the Roe v. Wade decision, it was estimated over half a million people went to Washington, D.C. to hold a public demonstration meant to draw attention to the wanton killing of the innocent unborn.  Seems like a pretty big story, doesn't it?  Well, the Tribune didn't think so--to the point where that story did not appear on page 1 or any other page for that matter.  It was completely ignored.  To make matters worse, a then high-ranking Tribune executive, who was contacted by Arlene Sawicki, a highly respected pro-life advocate, responded to her by writing "the story was not newsworthy."  That's right.  500,000 people or more demonstrated in our nation's capitol and the story wasn't "newsworthy," according to the Chicago Tribune.  So you can see why I was suspicious when I heard about the January 17, 2008 front page story.

Sadly, my suspicions were confirmed when another abortion piece written by Peres again appeared on the Chicago Tribune's front page just days later, titled, "The chance to make a choice" published on January 21st.  The article was virtually an advertisement which directed low-income "women and girls" to an organization that would give grants to those seeking abortions.  Isn't that something?  First, the Chicago Tribune tells us all not to worry because abortions are down in the U.S. and then, the day after hundreds of thousands again gathered in Washington, D.C. to protest Roe v. Wade, the Chicago Tribune is making sure "women and girls" know where to go to get rid of unwanted unborn children in Chicago.  However, there is a touch of honesty here on behalf of the Tribune and the pro-abortionists.  In the January 17th front page story, pro-abortion rights advocates noted there was a supposed reduction in abortions, but, at the same time, they claimed the falling numbers were due to a woman's lack of access to abortion facilities.  We used to call that "talking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time."  But there are more appropriate descriptions of this logic.

I guess the good news for those who agree cutting unborn babies into pieces is a woman's right concerns the fact the pro-abortionists and the Tribune staff writer are on the same page, no pun intended.  January 17th's front page story said abortions were down in America and the January 21st story was telling readers how to get those numbers back up.  In these days of situational ethics and moral relativism, I guess we can call that intellectual honesty.

By the way, Bill Beckman of Illinois Right to Life Committee said the Tribune's statistics regarding the reduction of abortions in Illinois do not match the facts.  Indeed, Beckman told me the number of abortions performed in Illinois went up in 2006, which was an increase from 2005 and the year 2000.  Beckman said the Tribune numbers were wrong as far as Illinois is concerned and he didn't know where Peres got her figures because her facts didn't align with statistics on abortion provided by the state.

But let's get back to the Chicago Tribune for one more bit of irony.  For the first time in...well, for the first time ever, the Chicago Tribune did cover the events in Washington, D.C. on Roe v. Wade day--on its front page to boot.  The only problem is the photograph accompanying the story depicted demonstrators standing in front of the United States Supreme Court building.  What's wrong with that, you may ask.  Well, if you look closely, all of the protestors pictured supported abortion rights except for one courageous individual carrying a pro-life placard.  There were no pictures of a teaming multitude.  There were no pictures of the Lincoln Memorial surrounded by throngs of pro-life demonstrators.  There were no photographs of the Washington, D.C. Tide Pool with tens of thousands pressing against its shores.

But Peres in her January 21st piece did make a reference to something which I thought was unfortunate and inappropriate at best.  Before and during the Civil War, slaves escaped from the bondage of slavery through the Underground Railroad.  This was a pathway to freedom involving churches and private dwellings which protected runaway slaves from those who pursued them.  The numbers who escaped the terrors of slavery via this gateway were in the thousands.  Peres, in her January 21st story, though not direct, seemed to draw an analogy between the underground system that women allegedly had to traverse before abortion was legalized.  Note to the Chicago Tribune's Judy Peres:  The original Underground Railroad represented a pathway to freedom and life itself.  Your implied underground abortion analogy referred to a modern day superhighway to death and destruction.  Please don't get the two confused and please don't think those who support the right to life are as ignorant as the Tribune is politically biased.  You would be doing all of us a favor by taking this advice.

Editor's note:  Later in the January 21st column written by Peres, a pro-abortionist does make a direct analogy between the Underground Railroad of the anti-bellum south and the illegal network which helped obtain abortions before the passage of Roe v. Wade.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact [email protected]

Thompson Helps McCain in SC: Hispanic/Black Divide Trouble for Dems: Paul Beats Giuliani in NV Again

Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director 

It took a "perfect storm," but Sen. John McCain won the Republican presidential primary in South Carolina on Saturday.  McCain eked out a victory over his closest challenger Mike Huckabee by the nearest of margins.  However, it took a confluence of some strange events to help McCain pull out his unexpected win and the Arizona Senator should be sending a thank you note to both Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney.

You see, Huckabee was expected to take South Carolina because of the high number of pro-family voters in that state.  But former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson followed Huckabee around as if Thompson were Huckabee's shadow.  In fact, Thompson did most of his campaigning in areas where Huckabee was counting on a large margin of victory over McCain and the strategy worked for those who don't want to see Huckabee win the Republican nomination.

To make matters worse for the former Arkansas Governor, in the middle of the week, Mitt Romney decided to head off to Nevada where his victory was assured because of the Mormon vote.  Romney took over 95% of votes cast by Mormons and many political observers are confused as to why the former Massachusetts Governor left South Carolina to his competition after spending millions of dollars in the Palmetto state.

Those of us who were watching the media's coverage of the South Carolina Republican primary experienced a moment of surrealism when Thompson gave what only can be called a weird speech before a winner was declared by the Associated Press.  Thompson came out and addressed his supporters, but he didn't say anything of substance.  Many were hoping he would announce the end of his presidential bid or, at least, give TV viewers a hint regarding why he was giving this speech.  It was very strange.

Thompson is expected to head back to Tennessee and meet with his mother, before deciding whether to go on with what has been a disappointing presidential campaign so far.

Those of us who respect Fred Thompson and think he is a good man would hate to believe he is staying in the race as a stalking horse or spoiler whose purpose is to derail the campaign of Mike Huckabee.  I think Thompson would not do such a thing, but these days, anything's possible in politics.  The stakes are that high.  I sincerely beseech Sen. Thompson and his supporters to give it up because his candidacy is only hurting the Republican Party.  Without a doubt, if Thompson had not been in Saturday's primary, Huckabee would have won and it won't take long for social conservatives to see what is happening if Thompson stays in the campaign.

Romney's departure also helped McCain when he left for Nevada.  Some of the votes McCain received would have went to Romney had he stayed in South Carolina, but I don't blame Romney for leaving.  It was clear Romney was not resonating with South Carolina voters and he pulled out to save face.  However, contrary to the dominant media and those political pundits who usually get it wrong, Huckabee has an excellent chance at winning in Florida--if Thompson gets out.  If he doesn't, pro-family conservatives might start sniffing the air for some foul political maneuvering being orchestrated by the GOP elite.

The Democrats are in big trouble after their caucus in Nevada.  Once again, racial politics played a role in that state, but this time Hispanics and African-Americans took center stage.  Many believed Barack Hussein Obama had the Nevada caucus sewn up after the Culinary Union threw its endorsement his way.  The only problem is the members of the Culinary Union in Nevada are 40% Hispanic.  The union leadership went for Obama, but practically every Latino in that union voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton which led to her victory.

I know we're supposed to be politically correct, aren't we?  But the Democratic Party not only has a black and white problem, it has an Hispanic/black problem which will play a role, no matter who is the eventual nominee in November.  Many African-Americans are aware of the illegal immigration issue firsthand which has come to the political forefront in American politics.  Indeed, many of the low-paying jobs that have gone to illegal immigrants were once held by poor blacks.  In Los Angeles it used to be the Crypts vs. the Bloods--two African-American street gangs who dominated the city's criminal activity.  Today the Crypts and Bloods have joined forces against Hispanic gangs like the notorious MS-13.  The split between African-Americans and Hispanics goes far beyond politics and crime.  It is a cultural phenomenon the Democratic Party has ignored until now and it won't go away.

Finally, Ron Paul again had a good showing in Nevada.  He tied with John McCain for second place behind Romney as he received 12% of those participating in the Nevada caucus.  I think Paul has beaten Rudy Giuliani four times now in Republican primaries.  Yet the media keeps telling us all, the former New York Mayor has a good chance at the GOP's presidential nomination.  Well, here's one thing that's for sure.  If Giuliani is the Republican Party's candidate in November, the Democrats will be celebrating in the White House come January 2009.  That's just the cold hard fact, folks.  However, the results in both the Democratic and Republican caucus in Nevada should send a message many do not want to hear.  Polling indicates 30% of conservative Christians will not vote for Romney because he's a Mormon.  Yet Romney won the vote in Nevada because he was a Mormon.  What does political correctness have to say about this?

And, in conclusion, FOX News continually touts Rudy Giuliani as a real player in the Republican mix.  If Giuliani is a player, what is Paul?  Oh, I forgot the Democrats.  The only thing that may save the GOP is the sad fact race is tearing apart the "Party of Tolerance."  Isn't there a saying that says, what goes around comes around?

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected]

First Huckabee is Attacked: Then Huckabee is Blamed for Attacks, Misquoted, etc., etc...

Commentary By Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

I don't recall ever experiencing anything like it--a Governor from a small southern state rockets to national prominence and so many are threatened by it.

Of course, I'm talking about Mike Huckabee, who many believe is the front-runner for the Republican Party's presidential nomination.  You see, the former Governor of Arkansas and ordained Baptist minister has come literally out of nowhere and many in the dominant media and the GOP elite don't like it.  Well, they don't like Huckabee's success.  Huckabee won the Iowa caucus, came in third in New Hampshire and Michigan, plus Huckabee may win the South Carolina Republican primary scheduled for Saturday, January 19th.

But what are they afraid of?  Huckabee is consistent with the GOP platform regarding all social issues, including favoring a Constitutional Amendment that would protect the innocent unborn and he would also amend the U.S. Constitution regarding the issue of marriage.  You see, Huckabee believes that institution is reserved solely for one man and one woman, just like President George W. Bush.

However, as soon as Huckabee's campaign started to get traction, attacks began coming--hot and heavy.  He was called a liberal tax and spender.  Huckabee was criticized for being soft on illegal immigration.  You name it, his opponents and special interest groups tried to make him look like Leon Trotsky in a well-tailored suit.

So, let's get down to the nuts and bolts regarding the attacks on Huckabee.  When former Democratic Arkansas Governor Jim "Guy" Tucker committed so many crimes I don't have time to list them here, Huckabee--who was Lt. Governor at the time--took over Tucker's job.  Remember, this was in a state controlled by the Clinton machine and 87% of its General Assembly were Democrats.  Arkansas had the worst roads in America, according to many trucker magazines; and its school system was ranked 49th out of 50 in the nation after Bill Clinton and Tucker had left.  Now Arkansas' roads are rated some of the best in America and its public education system has its head above water and children are learning.

Huckabee brought Arkansas back from the brink of oblivion.  Yet groups like the Club for Growth have been on his case, claiming Huckabee would tax and spend Americans to death.  But nothing is as simple as the Club for Growth would make it seem.  Arkansas' public schools had been decimated by corruption, someone had to fix them and Huckabee did so.  Plus, Huckabee has promised not to raise taxes, if elected President.  Fred Thompson has not given the same guarantee and neither has John McCain.  In fact, McCain refused to sign President Bush's tax cut which put billion of dollars back in the pockets of Americans.

Then came the attacks on Huckabee regarding illegal immigration.  He was supposed to be soft on the issue.  The truth is he allowed the children of illegal immigrants to get an education.  What was he supposed to do?  Leave them roam the streets?  Huckabee did what Christians and compassionate Americans are supposed to do.  He didn't blame the children.  Huckabee put the blame where it belonged--with parents who came here illegally.

Now I disagree with Huckabee's plan that would have given discounts to the children of illegal immigrants who were seeking higher education.  The discounts were fine, but those from other states were not entitled to this same opportunity and that was wrong and he has admitted so.  However, the real blame regarding problems surrounding illegal immigration lie at the feet of the federal government, including Congress, John McCain, Ted Kennedy and the President of the United States, George W. Bush--who wanted to solve the problem by giving "amnesty" to over 12 million people who entered this country illegally.  By the way, Mike Huckabee is the only candidate who said he would build a double fence on the United States border with Mexico and, eventually, through attrition and deportation, send those who are here illegally back to their native lands.  No other candidate has included all of these components in a plan to deal with this problem.  Here's a final tidbit.  During his time in the U.S. Senate, Fred Thompson did not initiate one piece of legislation designed to deal with illegal immigration--not one.

Fast forward to the days before the Republican primary in South Carolina (SC), where Huckabee is favored to win or, at the least, do very well.  While speaking to a group in SC, Huckabee was talking about the U.S. Constitution and the need to bring the document more in line with natural law.  The media jumped all over him, saying, in effect, Huckabee wanted to turn America into a theocracy.  Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.  Huckabee was talking about a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion and restricting marriage to include only one man and one woman.  That doesn't sound crazy to a vast majority of Americans and more and more, each day our country is realizing abortion is a sin against God and man.

Yet Huckabee's polling numbers keep rising in South Carolina.  What to do to stop him, pondered the GOP elite and dominant media.  The new tactic is to blame Huckabee for the attacks that were once being waged against him.  For example, on Hannity and Colmes (FOX News) co-host Alan Colmes was talking about a group that was making phone calls in South Carolina (push polling), stating that Huckabee had signed the no-tax pledge and another candidate hadn't.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with this, if it's the truth, and it is fact regarding Thompson and McCain.  Huckabee said the calls were being made by an independent group, he disavowed their actions and would ask them to stop making the calls.

In the mean time, another organization was criticizing Sen. John McCain, saying he was not a war hero.  This veteran's group was also saying McCain gave up military secrets while he was a prisoner of the North Vietnamese in Hanoi.  However, this group had nothing to do with Huckabee, no one suggested it did, and most everyone didn't like what was going on.  Yet Colmes implied Huckabee was responsible for these attacks on McCain as well.  In fact, the liberal Colmes plied this tactic very well and, if listeners weren't paying close attention, they would have assumed Huckabee had literally gone crazy and was making all kinds of charges against anyone in sight because his campaign was desperate.  What makes things worse is Sean Hannity sat by silently while he saw what his co-host was doing and said nothing.

There have been many tactics used against Mike Huckabee and most of them have been unfair.  I hate to say this, but, for election coverage, I turn to CNN or MSNBC instead of FOX News these days because Roger Ailes, the President of FOX, is obviously taking marching orders from the Republican hierarchy.  First the network pushed Rudy Giuliani.  Then it was John McCain.  After that, it was Mitt Romney.  And now FOX is hawking the failing campaign of former Sen. Fred Thompson.

I don't have the answer for this question:  Why isn't the mainstream media saying Mike Huckabee would be the easiest Republican to defeat in the general election?  Or, maybe I do have the answer.  Indeed, in Michigan, Democratic operatives were encouraging their Party's constituency to vote for Mitt Romney.  Shouldn't they have told their fellow Democrats to vote for Huckabee, if he were indeed the easiest to beat?  (NOTE:  The Democratic vote was meaningless in Michigan because of infighting within the Party.)

What does this all tell me?  There are those who are deathly afraid of a Huckabee presidency.  Perhaps it's because the former Arkansas Governor is truly a Reaganesque candidate who would appeal to Reagan Democrats and social conservatives.  That was the coalition which brought Ronald Reagan to power.

I don't have all the answers, but it is obvious there are significant forces lined up against a person who seems to be a good man and well fit to run this country.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected]

Oberweis: "The Milkman Cometh" or Goeth?

Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

My wife and I were driving down the road, returning from an errand, and I received a phone call from a very influential political operative.  "You ready, Dan," the caller asked, "have you seen it?"  Uh oh, I said to myself.  Those types of calls usually mean bad news or, as it may turn out, something good.  Well, this call was about something bad, but it didn't involve me.

"Have you read Michael Sneed's column in today's Chicago Sun-Times?"  Of course, I hadn't because I've practically given up on the dominant media, but my friend definitely sparked my interest.  "You know, the important race in the 14th U.S. Congressional District between State Senator Chris Lauzen and millionaire businessman Jim Oberweis?" he said.  The caller was referring to the upcoming Republican primary which will choose a candidate to run in a special election on March 5th to replace retired former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert.

Well, the news was quite shocking, according to Sneed.  It seems Mr. Oberweis is saying he is using a possible victory in the 14th Congressional District as a stepping stone to the gubernatorial race in 2010.  Sneed wrote, "Oberweis is telling pals privately he'll probably only be a one-termer because . . . he would use the congressional seat as a launching pad to run for Illinois governor again." [http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/742618,CST-NWS-SNEED16.article]

My wife was listening and, as the car suddenly veered of the road, we both quickly regained composure and made it home safely.  I had to check this out for myself.  So, we accessed Dave Diersen's GOP USA Illinois daily e-newsletter, got a link to the Sneed story and read it for ourselves.

Stunned, flabbergasted, perplexed, angry, I can go on and on, but it's the voters in the 14th District who should be mad if Sneed has it right.

Anyone who knows me or has read my columns will probably understand what happened next.  I quickly tried to figure out what would motivate a political candidate to do such a thing and why would he tell anyone about it.  Then it became clear to me.  You see, Oberweis has run in every election, seeking office from dog catcher to U.S. Senate to Governor and his success record isn't exactly stellar.  Well, I exaggerate.  Oberweis hasn't run for dog catcher, has he?  However, it didn't take long for me to figure out what the millionaire milkman was up to.  He has spent millions of dollars, but hasn't won an election.

Please pay close attention because my next words will help make sense of it all.  Since Oberweis is known as a loser, at least politically, he needs a victory.  And since Hastert's vacated seat is very important, he thinks a win will take away the loser label from his political resume.  Then, Oberweis could run for Governor, the office he really wants, coming off a fresh win in the 14th District.  Quite a plan, isn't it?

Yes, I know, the rich businessman may have had noble intentions, if Sneed's column is accurate.  Oberweis may be running for the 14th District as a strict believer in term limits.  The only problem is, when was he going to tell the voters of the 14th District?  LOL.  Someone asked me to call Oberweis for his opinion on Sneed's blockbuster story, but my Mother always told me, "don't let people kick you in the head more than once."  The fact is, I've spoken with the millionaire milkman many times and I have to say some of his comments have been intriguing--and those are very kind words on my part.  For example, I once posed this question to Jim Oberweis:  "Jim, are you pro-life for political or moral reasons?"  What a softball question, I thought.  Anyone with an ounce of political acumen--or, dare I say...OK, I'll be nice--would knock that one out of the park, especially since Oberweis knows I am a pro-life advocate.  Oberweis answered with confidence and without hesitation.  "Political," he said.  After picking myself up off the floor, I wondered if he had understood me.  No one could be that politically naive, but I left it there because there was nothing else to say.

On another occasion, Mr. Oberweis called me for a reason that I don't recall at this time.  I was just reminded, the conversation involved the Commonwealth Edison rate hike which went into effect last year.  I had written a number of columns blasting ComEd and Ameren CILCO (which serves mid and southern Illinois).  Oberweis wanted to defend ComEd and try to convince me why he was right.  I asked him if he knew some mid and southern Illinois residents were paying 200 to 300% more on their electric bills and with higher prices being soon to follow regarding heating oil, perhaps this rate hike wasn't a good idea.  Oberweis wasn't aware of what was going on downstate and I guess he shouldn't be because he was running for Governor of Cook County, wasn't he?

Then, Oberweis hit me with a bombshell when he said gasoline prices should go as high as $6 or $7 a gallon to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil.  Once again, I was picking myself up off the floor, as I asked my wife to hand me the phone, after it fell out of my hands.  I told Oberweis, "you reduce America's dependency on foreign oil by building more refineries, building more nuclear power plants, reducing the restrictions on offshore drilling in California, tapping our vast oil reserves in Alaska, cutting down on the ridiculous number of gasoline blends sold in the United States because it is required by the EPA and quit flying around Illinois in your private plane and try driving through the state--like the rest of us."  It was obvious Mr. Oberweis didn't get it, but the greatest problem I had with him resulted from things he said later.

Oberweis essentially said my question about whether abortion is a political or moral issue was a "trap."  And then he implied the statement about $6 or $7 per gallon gasoline was something economists had said--not him.  Essentially, I was mistaken, as many people are, after interviewing Mr. Oberweis and I took him the wrong way.

Well, someone said I should interview Oberweis regarding Sneed's tidbit.  I said to myself, what's the use?  This guy will tell me one thing and if it doesn't come out right, he'll say I lied or misquoted him.  My Momma didn't raise no dummy!

So let's see what we are left with.  Jim Oberweis jumped into a primary race that he shouldn't have with Sen. Chris Lauzen.  The result may lead to a Democratic victory in the 14th Congressional District.  But, with Oberweis' millions, he could pull the thing out, stay for two years and then soothe his massive ego by running for Governor.

I believe character should play a role in who Americans vote for.  I won't make a decision for my readers regarding Jim Oberweis.  However, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to figure out what I think of the man.

Years ago, he called pro-lifers a nasty name, but he apologized and that made everything all right to some.  I guess we should forgive, shouldn't we?  Then the man could run for the U.S. Senate in 2008, but doesn't and challenges Chris Lauzen, an individual who has carried the political water for the pro-family movement in Illinois for years.  Now, according to Sneed's report, he is attempting to step on the people of the 14th District to get into the Governor's mansion.

I am not able to vote in the race for Hastert's vacated seat and I won't tell people who to choose in that race.  However, good government is dependent upon more than a fat wallet and free ice cream.  Let's hope that message has gotten across for the sake of us all.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected] 

Race and Gender Tearing Dems Apart: GOP Elite Should Learn Lesson and Leave Huckabee + Paul Alone

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

I may be physically blind, but it's clear to me the Republican Party elite truly lacks vision regarding this year's heated presidential primary battles in both parties.  Someone needs to tell the big wigs in Washington, D.C.; if Republicans want to vote for Mike Huckabee, they have a right to do so and the same goes for Ron Paul.  In fact, the more these elitists tell Americans how to vote, the less they will listen.  If members of the GOP truly believe in the Ronald Reagan philosophy, they should also adhere to his so-called 11th commandment which says:  Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican.  Whether you agree with this mindset or not, the Party bosses, who are criticizing Paul and Huckabee the most, claim to be true inheritors of the Reagan legacy.  Is there a disconnect here or is it me?

Now, I don't necessarily believe in Reagan's 11th commandment, at least as far as the general election is concerned.  If someone is running as a Republican, but acts more like a left-wing liberal Democrat, and the Democrat has policies which reflect the views held in the GOP platform, the Democrat is going to get my vote on principle alone.  But I think the primaries are a different story.  The candidates should present their position on the issues and let us decide.  This would be the smart thing to do, yet no one has accused the Republican leadership of being too intelligent lately.

For example, the Democrats are currently tearing their Party apart.  Race and gender may destroy an unholy coalition that has lasted since the late '60's.  Yes, I know, the "Donkey Party" stands for tolerance and inclusion.  Well, at least that's what they keep tell us.  However, all that tolerance and all that inclusion seemingly has flown out the window, along with the bull they have been slinging at Americans for years.  Sorry about the language, folks, but sometimes I get excited.

Frankly, I am enjoying every minute of the Democratic angst over race and gender.  Remember, we Republicans are supposedly insensitive towards minorities and women, but somehow, even Bill Clinton, the so-named first black president caught a whoopin' from the supporters of Barack Hussein Obama recently.  You see, lover Bill was addressing a crowd concerning Obama's varying positions on the War in Iraq.  The former President essentially said Obama's stands on the Middle East War were from fantasyland.  However, the junior Senator from Illinois' supporters took lover Bill's words to mean African-Americans were fooling themselves if they believed a black man could be elected president of the United States.

Mr. Clinton, I feel your pain.  You see, we Republican elephants never forget.  We Republican elephants will always remember how race has been used against the GOP at every opportunity.  You see, we Republican elephants have not forgotten how gender has played a significant role in the Democratic Party's attempt to divide America.  Gosh, paybacks are a ... oops, there I go again.

It hurts, doesn't it?  Well, Republicans have experienced this type of pain for years and we were ready to go through it again, if Barack Hussein Obama wins your Party's presidential nomination.  The same goes for your wife.  All Americans would have to stand by your woman or be called chauvinist pigs if she wins the nomination, wouldn't they?

Gosh, earlier this month, I was crying with Hillary Clinton [Crying: There's No Crying In Politics, Tears Won't Defeat Obama] and now I find myself defending her husband against charges of racism.  Does anyone have a thermometer?  I must be desperately ill.

But, seriously, what we see happening in the Democratic Party regarding what is truly a sad battle over race and gender is bad for our country.  Many of us have been trying to stop this kind of thing for years.  Yet the media wouldn't listen.  In fact, the dominant press encourages this behavior because it gives them high ratings.  The only problem is the far left-leaning mainstream media is cutting their nose off to spite their face.  Don't forget, they do love the Democrats and they do love "identity politics."

You've never heard of identity politics?  It's the new-fangled media-created term for political race-baiting and politics driven by gender.  Yep!  Identity politics.  Sounds nice, doesn't it?  But it's very ugly and the Democratic Party is reaping what it has sown.

The Republican muckity mucks should be watching what's going on in that other Party and learn a lesson from it.  They should quit attacking each other and leave the dirty work up to those tolerant and inclusive Democrats.  You see, if you manage not to alienate members of your own Party, it's quite possible the Dems will be so divided come November, the GOP's presidential candidate just might again take office in January of 2009.

If Hillary Clinton wins her Party's presidential nomination, I don't think African-Americans are going to be too happy about it or tolerant of it.  There is no doubt race is driving some of Obama's support.  How will blacks feel if the Clinton's derailed history?  Bill and Hillary Clinton, if victorious, will be blamed for keeping the first African-American out of the White House.  I think Oprah Winfrey and some others will have trouble forgiving the former President and First Lady for this, don't you?

And if the Republicans really want to keep their office on Pennsylvania Avenue in 2009, here's an idea.  No matter who gets the nomination, how about choosing someone like former Congressman J.C. Watts of Oklahoma for V-P?  Watts was not only a great football player, he was an excellent legislator as well.  By the way, Watts was an African-American, too.  Wouldn't that be interesting?       

Such a scenario would probably never take place because it simply makes too much sense.  Republican power brokers wouldn't get it.  But let's hope the GOP can come together just for a little while and let the people do the voting:  Media, that includes you, too.  Then, in November, let the chips fall where they may.  And there ought to be plenty of chips because the Democratic Party will be in pieces.

Media, Democrats and Their Rhetoric

How the Media and Liberals Promote the "Gay" Agenda, Abortion "Rights" and Smoking Bans by Bill Zettler

Technically speaking, “gays” are homosexual and “straights” are heterosexual. Perhaps the media has chosen the shorter terms to save on ink and paper, but my guess is they do it to remove the rather unseemly word “sex” from the connotation. After all, “gay” connotes happiness and exuberance while “sex” ofttimes connotes something much less savory and, in some cases, threatening. I mean a rapist has sex, but the victim of the rapist’s sex does not have gaiety. Therefore, using the word “gay” to cover up the “sex” part of homosexuality is disingenuous at best.

So “gay” is another one of those media code words similar to a woman's “right to choose” which sounds a lot better than “right to dismember a fetus”. The end result, sex or abortion, becomes an action unrelated to the term commonly used by the press.

Also, I didn't know this, but--according to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the press--only gays can speak Arabic. That’s why having them leave the military under the “don't ask, don't tell” policy is bad for America. Nancy and Harry said the Arabic-speaking gays were only trying to serve their country like any other patriotic American.

This does explain why I have never been able to understand Barney Frank, gay congressman from Massachusetts. I thought maybe it was his New England accent and the fact that he bubbled his words like someone under water, but now I know it is because he was speaking Arabic.

Call me a skeptic, but it sounds to me like the gays joined the military to make a political point, not to serve their country. You know, get on the evening news and advance the gay agenda.

Otherwise why didn't those patriotic, Arabic-speaking gays go over to the State Department or CIA and get a job serving their country for a lot more money than they made in the military? Instead, they joined the military, announced their “gaiety” and got kicked out under the “Don't ask, don't tell” policy then went to the liberal press. Hmm, sounds a little suspicious to me.

In other “Do ask, do tell” news, former NBA player Tim Hardaway was recently taken out to the politically-correct woodshed and given a thorough whipping by the liberal media for his “I am homophobic” comments. It wasn't as bad as the Imus thrashing, but almost. The protection and projection of the gay agenda in the media and entertainment fields (is there a difference?) is overwhelming. I mean when was the last time you saw a TV series or movie without a gay character or subplot? And now we hear of a gay wizard in Harry Potter? Where will it end, with Nancy Drew coming out of the closet? If beings from outer space watched our TV and movies before invading they would be convinced we were “nuetro-sexual” i.e., half heterosexual and half homosexual.

Billionaire NBA owners quickly chimed in with the PC quote “Gays-in-the-locker-room-is-OK-with-me”. But I don't think the owners take showers with the players after games, at least I hope not, therefore their opinion is most certainly different than the players. My guess is if you took a secret ballot of NBA players the result would be an overwhelming vote for separate showers by sexual preference. I don't think Hardaway is alone on this issue.

The object of all Hardaway’s discussion is a 6’ 10” 270 pound male homosexual, a former professional basketball player who recently wrote a book about his experiences in the NBA. This is a very large, powerful human being. Playing in a game with him is one thing, showering with him after the game is an entirely different matter.

So I have some questions for the gays-in-the-locker-room-is-OK-with-me crowd: would it bother you if this 6’ 10” 270 pound homosexual man was at your local club taking a shower with your teenage son after a quick pick up game of hoops?

If not, then why would it bother you if a 6’ 10” heterosexual man was at your local club taking a shower with your teenage daughter after a brisk tennis match? How about with your wife?

There is a reason we do not allow the latter and it is the same reason we should not allow the former. Many men are predators and we must protect the vulnerable from them. Societies have done that for millennia and have never distinguished between homosexual and heterosexual threats. It is only in today’s parallel media universe that homosexual men are not considered threats, but heterosexual men are.

If there is risk with the one, then there is risk with the other. Let's treat them as equal threats. Pretending otherwise, in the name of political correctness, places the most vulnerable among us in danger.

And, finally, we have the smoking bans that are popping up all over the country, especially in liberal Blue states such as Illinois and New York. The theory here is patrons of taverns are too dumb to weigh the risks to their health of entering a smoking area. Therefore, liberals need to protect them from themselves by banning smoking in public places.

What I am wondering is why are there no bans on unprotected homosexual sex? According to the Centers for Disease Control, homosexual males have 71% of the HIV/AIDS diagnosed in the U.S. and that does not include the women and children infected by the bisexual subgroup. Isn’t that a threat to public health at least as dangerous as smoking in a bar? Certainly more people die of second hand AIDS each year than die from second hand smoke. Why no outcry, no editorials in the New York Times?

I think it is because gays are a media protected liberal sub-group and therefore immune to the types of criticism leveled at the unprotected (unprotected by the media that is) lower class, often conservative, groups like smokers and gun owners. You can hear the disdain in liberals' voices every-time they emote about the evils of smoking. On the other hand, they tend towards the Jerry Seinfeld approach when it comes to gays “Not that there is anything wrong with that”.

If there is nothing wrong with gay sex, how can there possibly be anything wrong with smoking in a bar? Theoretically you could have gay sex or perform an abortion in a bar, but only if you were not smoking.

I don’t get it.

Bill Zettler is a contributing editor to RFFM.org

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected]