RFFM.ORG

Tribune's Zorn Infers Christians Are Mentally Ill For Their Beliefs: Spirited Humor or Foot-In-Mouth Disease?

My Feelings Would Be Hurt (If Only I Wasn't So "Obtuse") by Dan Gura

Last week RFFM.org's founder/executive director, Daniel Zanoza, wrote an excellent piece, "Obama, the Antichrist? Hmm."  [http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/02/obama-the-antic.html] As is my practice, I forwarded his column to many politically astute people (Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Paulists, et al) whom I thought would enjoy and maybe even learn from it.  One of these recipients was Eric Zorn, a columnist for the Chicago Tribune.

Now the daily newspapers might not be killing as many trees (for paper) as they did in their heyday, but I'm still fond of the rustle of newsprint and read at least three every day.

So, I am keenly aware of the dearth of conservative writers, particularly at the Colonel's old paper.  Always mindful of the old Italian adage, keep your friends close and your enemies closer, I read every opinion piece to see what the anti-Christian, pro-abortion, anti-family values columnists are up to.  Daily, I wonder how long before the Editors realize readership is plunging because their elitist, arrogant views do not reflect mainstream America's.  You know, the working class stiffs who used to pick up a morning paper to read on the bus going to work, then an afternoon one (Daily News or the Herald American) to peruse on the way home.

Ask yourself, when was the last time you clipped a Zorn column and scotch taped it to your refrigerator?  Let me guess.  Never.  I'll bet Mike Royko, the brilliant Pulitzer Prize winning columnist, sold more papers on a bad day than every Chicago newspaper columnist alive today does.  But I digress.

After reading the "Obama, the Antichrist? Hmm." column, Mr. Zorn responded, "It's truly offensive the way Mr. Zanoza parodies the mentally ill.  Thank you for calling this to my attention."   

Perplexed, I re-read the column three times trying to find any reference or allusion, no matter how small, insignificant or vague, to the mentally ill.  Finding none, I again wrote Mr. Zorn.  I asked, "Parodies the mentally ill? Where? I can't seem to find any reference to the mentally ill anywhere in his column.  Please advise where you find the parody since I am unable to find it.  Many thanks, Dan."

I forwarded our exchange to Dan Zanoza, the purveyor of the purported parody.  We brainstormed and came to the conclusion that, despite the target of his column being people mesmerized by the junior Senator from Illinois, Zorn was actually calling Christians mentally ill.  Either that, or the champion of tolerance and political correctness is such an inarticulate writer that he could not string together a two sentence reply.

Zanoza then sent Zorn an e-mail which clarified his position.  "...you were very concerned that I was poking fun at the mentally deprived.  Let me assure you, I do not think Democrats are mentally deprived.  I do believe many of them are morally depraved, but not deprived.  Sorry if there was any confusion and I hope this message will allay your concerns."

When Zorn did not respond, I again e-mailed him, giving a third opportunity to explain his inflammatory statement.

The queer response I received could only have come from someone who knows his poor choice of words (the computer version of foot-in-mouth) has got him in trouble.  "Good lord, how dense ARE you people?  I'd expose how obtuse you are only that would only get you the measure of publicity you seek.  Sorry.  I'll tell you what I tell the Westboro Baptist boys.  Go away."

Publicity?  I sought no publicity, only clarification of a vague sentence.  I gave Zorn the benefit of the doubt and questioned in a private e-mail who he intended to say was mentally ill.  He chose to let the statement stand without explanation or correction.

Honest Eric, until I received you puerile response I had no intention of giving you any publicity amongst readers of www.RFFM.org.  Besides, you hurt my self-esteem when you told me to "go away."  And liberal Democrats know how important self-esteem is.

In conclusion, I invite every reader to re-read "Obama. The Antichrist? Hmm" and Zorn's e-mails.  Ask yourself, which of us is really dense and obtuse?  Is Zorn saying Christians are mentally ill?  Or could he have parsed his response in such a way that, when called on the carpet, be able to claim he actually meant Obama's supporters were beyond the pale?  I'll let you decide.  However, neither option cloaks the Tribune columnist in much glory.

Dan Gura is a contributing editor to RFFM.org

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

Kennedy's Inexperience Nearly Led To World War III: Can We Expect Same From Obama?

Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

Perhaps the greatest historic misnomer today regards the presidency of John F. Kennedy.  Historic revisionists say Kennedy had a successful administration--even though he had little or no experience in foreign affairs.

In reality, the Kennedy presidency possibly represented the most dangerous period in American history.  From its inception, Kennedy quickly learned the world was not a place of cordial state dinners and visions of Camelot.

One of Kennedy's first important duties included a summit meeting held in Europe with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev.  Kennedy entered the meeting with the rambunctious Communist Party leader with an air of confidence.  But the summit meeting turned into a disaster for the 43 year-old President and he left a beaten man who, in the midst of a very hot Cold War, had ratcheted up the possibility for confrontation between the two world powers to the highest level since World War II.

However, Kennedy's inexperience became even more evident during the Bay of Pigs fiasco where the island of Cuba was invaded by CIA-aided Cuban nationals.  It was another day of infamy for the United States as Kennedy called off CIA air cover for the pro-American invading Cubans and many of them were captured or killed on beaches just 90 miles from the coast of Florida.

By this time, the Soviet Union knew they were dealing with a political novice.  Kennedy might have been well-honed in the skills of America's wheelings and dealings in smoke-filled back rooms, but his acumen regarding the hard real world was grossly lacking and the wrong people knew it.  Khrushchev quickly took advantage of Kennedy's naiveté and installed strategic missiles which had the potential of attacking American cities from the island of Cuba.  In just two short years, Kennedy's inexperience had put the world on the brink of World War III.

Historians all agree Khrushchev would have never taken such provocative steps if Eisenhower or Truman were still in the White House.  But the Soviet Prime Minister saw weakness and he took advantage of it.

There have been many stories on the subject of the Cuban missile crisis.  In essence, the situation was resolved because Kennedy agreed to pull American-manned Jupiter missiles out of Turkey.  In return, Fidel Castro dismantled the missile sites in Cuba and Kennedy was portrayed as a hero to the American public when, in reality, his lack of knowledge regarding foreign affairs could have wiped out mankind.

That is why it is extremely dangerous when some say Barack Hussein Obama's lack of experience will not be a factor in his ability to lead our nation.  But, in this case, Obama lacks experience in domestic issues and foreign affairs as well.

It is possible America finds itself in a world that is more dangerous today than the one which met John F. Kennedy in January of 1961 when he took office.  China is building up its military at an exponential rate and it still has its sites on Taiwan.  Some say the Chinese are waiting for a time to call America's bluff regarding our nation's treaty with Taiwan and when that comes would a Barack Obama have what it takes to deal with the situation?  Russia--under Vladimir Putin--is also flexing its muscles and many military experts believe the former Cold War is heating up once again.  Then, of course, there is America's war against terror.

These are all daunting challenges waiting to face the next President of the Unites States.  Will that man or woman be up to the task?  Or will the Unites States essentially roll the dice on its future?  Is Barack Obama the answer and, more important, can Americans afford not to ask that question?

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

Barack Hussein Obama: No! No! No! Says John McCain

Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

On Tuesday, we got a little taste of how Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican Party's presidential nominee, will run his campaign against his presumptive Democratic challenger, Barack Hussein Obama.   Oops.  I apologize.  I guess I'm not supposed to use Barack Obama's middle name, Hussein, according to the Arizona Senator and, if I had a national radio talk show, I would be in big trouble right now.

You see, during a McCain rally in Ohio, a popular radio talk show host, Bill Cunningham (“The Big Show” with Bill Cunningham) was warming up the audience for McCain.  While doing so, Cunningham used Obama's full name, Barack Hussein Obama, three times and pointed to the fact the American mainstream media has given the junior Senator from Illinois a virtual pass on the issues.  Cunningham also said the national media needed to “peel the bark off Barack Hussein Obama.”

After the event, McCain held a scheduled press conference and issued an apology for Cunningham's performance even though McCain had not heard Cunningham's rally warm-up.  McCain went on to talk about what an honorable man Obama is and he praised Hillary Rodham Clinton in the process.

Folks, they don't call the U.S. Senate the "most exclusive club in America" for nothin'.  It seems McCain is willing to put his membership in the good ole boy network above the future welfare of his country and, if he continues to run his campaign this way, they will be swearing in Barack Hussein Obama next January as president of the United States.

Now, I'm not willing to take any of the blame for the disaster which may soon befall the Republican Party and, more important, the United States of America, if Obama is elected.  I didn't vote for McCain.  He assumed the presumptive nominee mantle with the help of a media which has already started to turn on him.  So my hands are clean.  I suppose the thing that bothers me most about this story is McCain seems to save his venom for the wrong people.

McCain didn't exactly play patty cake with former opponent Mitt Romney during the primary season.  In fact, McCain would often grit his teeth in that all so menacing style of his and cut into Romney like a well-trained butcher carving up steaks for a Lincoln Day dinner.  There are also reports of McCain using highly colorful language behind the scenes--to put it mildly--which brings into question that soft, almost cuddly, demeanor he tries to project in public.

I don't think there's any problem with using Obama's middle name.  It's part of his heritage.  It's part of who he is.  And, if that heritage, combined with some of the recent comments made by Obama and his wife, Michelle, shed light on this man's true world view, the American people have a right to know it or hear it.

After Cunningham heard about McCain's apology, the talk show host said he was pulling his endorsement of McCain, saying the country would be in better hands if Mrs. Clinton were elected president.

Perhaps we are seeing why a United States Senator has not won the presidency since John F. Kennedy pulled it off back in 1960.  Of course, Kennedy got the help of the Chicago mob and a very generous father who literally paid for votes in some parts of the country.  Senators simply spend too much time patting each other on the back and sharing expensive meals paid for by the taxpayers to run realistic campaigns.

Of course, there is still one candidate in the Republican Party's presidential race, the former Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee.  But the dominant media has been trying to bury Huckabee since he won the Iowa caucus and they haven't put their shovels away ever since.  So, if you are a Republican, McCain is likely your guy, no matter whether you want him or not.

So listen up, you right wing radicals.  Never use the full name of Barack Hussein Obama again, under any circumstances or you just might be on the outside, looking in, when it comes to the McCain presidential effort.

In the mean time, once Obama secures the Democratic presidential nomination, expect McCain's love affair with the dominant press to come to a screeching end.  He will be shredded like the cole slaw you see being prepared in your supermarket's deli section.  McCain will then grit his teeth, chew out his staff with a couple of well-placed expletive deletives and Barack Hussein Obama will become the next president of the Unites States.  Oops, there I go again.  Shame on me.  I guess I should take a time-out.

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

Obama The Antichrist? Hmm.

Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

Are these the end times?  Judeo-Christian Scripture tells us there will be signs and wonders at the end of the age, but I'm not sure the Bible had hard core politics in mind.

Some may be shocked at the title I have given this piece.  To be honest, it took me about ten seconds to decide whether asking the ultimate question would violate some kind of Christian ethic.  Let's just say I wrote this column with my tongue almost firmly planted in cheek.

The truth is, during the last six months, I have been searching for a rationale to describe the phenomenon concerning the meteoric political rise of Barack Hussein Obama.  I have heard Republicans say they could vote for the junior Senator from Illinois in the November presidential election.  I have witnessed the veritable dismantling of the Clinton political machine by a man who does not have the experience of most serving in the U.S. Congress.  I have heard of women swooning just by being in Obama's presence and, quite frankly, I don't get it.  I won't even admit Obama gives a good impression of the late Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., as some people swear he does.

It's as if a significant portion of the American public is under some sort of ungodly spell when it comes to Obama and someone needs to give me a good explanation for it.  There is one thing I do know and that is Obama's popularity is similar to the cult of personality which surrounded a number of past leaders, many of whom were not exactly perfect citizens of the world.  But I'm not going to go there.  Let's stick with some striking comparisons given to us in Scripture.

The antichrist is mentioned in 1 John 2:18-19, 1 John 2:22-23, 1 John 4:2-3 and 2 John 1:7.  Without going into the darker meaning of the antichrist's existence, for a moment let us talk about how he will come to power.  Judeo-Christian teachings tell us the antichrist is a man who will have unbelievable charisma.  This man of perdition will claim he is an emissary of peace and hope.  The entire world will buy into his lies and deception.  The antichrist will be given great spiritual powers by dark forces.  However, he will also be given great political power by men who see him as a type of secular messiah.  Eventually, the antichrist will reveal his true nature--after he has assumed authority over the entire world--and it will take God's intervention alone to defeat him.

Scripture goes one step further by saying, even those who know the truth will have the potential to be deceived by the antichrist--and some will.  Now many will scoff at my commentary, saying I'm just another goofy Christian, playing out some sort of forecast of spiritual gloom and doom at the expense of a great man.

That's just it.  Though a lot more would have to happen before I would truly believe Sen. Obama was a key player on the road to Armageddon, the nay-sayers would still have to "show me" even though I don't hail from Missouri.

Obama talks about bringing our nation together, but he doesn't explain how he would accomplish this lofty goal.  For example, those who support abortion rights believe women should have access to this procedure upon demand.  In contrast, people like myself actually believe the taking of an innocent unborn child's life is murder--or something very close to it.  Indeed, Obama seems to be the person least qualified to bring unity over this subject because he and Hillary Rodham Clinton were arguing about which one of them would allow the killing of more unborn children.

Obama would grant "amnesty" or "a path to citizenship" to over 12 million who are in this nation illegally.  Meanwhile, over 75% of Americans are against such a plan and want our nation's borders with Mexico secured.  The Senator from Illinois has lofty aspirations regarding health care that would cost American taxpayers billions of dollars.  Most Americans oppose any tax hike.  Therefore, such a plan would be impossible to implement.

The litany goes on and on.  Obama offers hope and change, change and hope, but, in reality, the political atmosphere in the United States says something completely different.  There would be "hope" if only all Americans would agree with the practice of abortion.  Will we finally experience change when a vast number of U.S. citizens say there should be no border with Mexico?  Will we all come together, if we simply create dialogue with people who have sworn to kill us, like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as Obama suggests?

These are some of the reasons why I have made the Obama antichrist analogy.  It would take some sort of mesmerism to get me to believe that killing babies in the womb is a Constitutional right.  But I don't think that is the way the antichrist will operate.  Those who fall under his spell won't think about such subjects; the world will simply look at an aura which exists around an individual, but the aura will have no substance.  There will be light, but no heat.  There will be mass, but no form.  The message will have a spiritual resonance, but be lacking in spiritual quality.

Doesn't this describe Barack Hussein Obama to the nth degree?  No, I don't really think Obama is Satan's main man on the planet Earth.  But until someone gives me a reasonable explanation for his popularity, I'm going to leave the door to this thought open, just a crack.  Even if I am wrong, at least this will let some light shine through.

Author's Note:  For more on the subject, go to:   http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/03/christians-need.html 

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

How Hillary Could Add To Her Campaign Via Subtraction

Commentary by Dan Gura *

Alas, Hillary's presidential hopes are sinking quicker than the Titanic and without any of the movie's romance.  She even lost Wisconsin, long considered a slam dunk state for the Clinton's.  Is it too late to cast Bubba adrift in a lifeboat?

A while back, Newsweek magazine ran, "Fragged by a F.O.B." (Friend Of Bill) in which columnist Evan Thomas speculated, "Clinton's presidential campaign can ill afford another scandal swirling around her husband."  If this primary season has proven anything, it is that what your mother said is true; a bad reputation is mighty hard to shake.

By all accounts the former president has been a doting husband, as he campaigns across the length and breadth of this great country.  I have not heard of anyone even hinting that he has tried to show a co-ed what the meaning of "is-is."  Instead he has been a razorback superman, leaping to his wife's defense whenever someone mentions Barack Hussein Obama's name.

At Steubenville (Ohio) University, Bill even looked sincere when he lost his temper and lashed out at the pro-life students who questioned Hillary's support of abortion-on-demand.  He bristled with righteous indignation when he said, "Now, the issue is you can't name me anybody presently in politics that did more to introduce policies that reduce the number of real abortions instead of the hot air putting out to tear people up and make votes by dividing America." (actual quote)  Huh?  I guess articulation must take a back seat when Bill switches to back-alley scrapper mode.

But there still is something in his smirk that makes a father rush to lock up his wife and daughters (and grandmother, too!).

And I'm not the only one questioning whether Hillary can overcome the allure of Illinois' black messiah among Democratic voters who worry that "I did not have sex with that woman" will repeat the antics which transformed the White House into Sodom and Gomorrah on the Potomac.  Again, a bad reputation is mighty hard to shake.

Hillary has now lost ten primaries in a row.  Even Cubs fans think that's one heck of a losing streak and are screaming fire the manager.

As a student of Chicago politics, I have come up with two possible solutions to Hillary's dilemma.

* She could give Bill a sack of twenties, a fake beard and a plane ticket to Amsterdam--and hope no one recognizes him in their famous red light district.
* A quickie Las Vegas divorce.

I recommend the later.  The way I see it, Hillary would be a more sympathetic--and electable--figure if she were a solo act.  Imagine the former Park Ridge, Illinois Republican (honest, she was one of us) freed from having to carry the baggage of an impeached, disbarred, convicted perjurer everywhere she went.  Yep, Hillary would definitely benefit if her six hundred pound gorilla disappeared from the lime light.

I can picture the grief stricken senator from New York all dressed in black, a thick veil hiding her ear-to-ear grin, as she makes an impassioned plea for votes.  She could dab a tear away when she describes the hurt of being abandoned by a philandering husband.  Dr. Phil and Oprah would darn near break their necks rushing to comfort her tormented soul.

Come November, we would have to open express lines at the polling places to handle the surge of Prada-wearing soccer moms, pushing their 1.35 children in gigantic strollers, as they demand the right to vote for the long-suffering divorcee Clinton.  It would also guarantee the man-hating feminist vote as well as those of every woman who was ever scorned by a no good horn-dog.

And the presidential ballot would need just one box on it: Hillary for Saint/President/Queen/Savior/World's Smartest Woman/Earth Mother. 

Let the coronation begin.

Dan Gura is a contributing editor to RFFM.org

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

From the Archives: For English, Press “1” by Daniel T. Zanoza

EDITOR'S NOTE: The following column first appeared in Conservative Truth's online magazine on May 15, 2006.  Though somethings have changed, many things have stayed the same in America regarding illegal immigration.  John McCain's plan that would have given "amnesty" to over 12 million people who entered the U.S. illegally was defeated in the Senate.  However, Sen. McCain may soon lock up the Republican Party's presidential nomination and many believe we have not seen the end of the "amnesty" for illegals issue.  DTZ 

It's happened to me more times than I care to remember...a call to either a public or private institution begins with the words, "For English, press one."  To most people, when this occurs it is frustrating to no end.  I thought I heard it all, but the other day, when making a call to the Social Security Administration, I heard the usual prompt about pressing one for English.  However, to my amazement, the recording at the other end of the phone line began spouting out a healthy flow of uninterrupted Spanish.  In fact, I was required to do something or I would have had to take a quick course "en Espanol" to understand what was being said.  Here I was, an English-speaking American citizen, who was being forced to do something extra, in order to receive a message from my own government in English.  I was astounded, yet it seemed par for the course.

I get the same feeling when I call or write elected officials in Congress concerning the problem of illegal immigration.  It seems politicians are not speaking the same language as I am.  Unfortunately, this is not an exception to the rule.

Overwhelmingly, Americans favor policies that would restrict the flow of illegal aliens into the United States over our border with Mexico.  Whether it would take the building of a 2,000 mile long security fence on the border or sending the military to stem the flow of illegals into the United States, Americans want something done -- and soon -- concerning the issue.

But all we are hearing from many legislators is how illegal immigrants need to come out of the shadows and be given citizenship.  The Republican Party is divided on the issue and Democrats, for the most part, see the legalization of 12 million more illegals as a way to increase their voting bloc.  Some Republicans are hesitant to take on the problem because they are beholdin' to big business.  During the recent so-called immigrant walk-out, companies like Tyson Foods and Purdue Chicken were forced to close their plants because so many of their employees were not going to show up for work that day.  Now you would think the office of Homeland Security would be asking some serious questions of Tyson and Purdue concerning their plant closings.  Are so many illegals working at these companies that business could not be conducted?  It seems these businesses were doing Homeland Security's work for them.  But there were no reports of the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) raiding Tyson or Purdue or, for that matter, any of the many companies that closed down on "immigration walk-out day," whether the businesses were big or small.

Yes, I know many illegal immigrants present fake ID's while seeking employment.  Indeed, the Social Security Administration reported $60 billion in fraudulent claims last year alone.  But it should only take one year--at most--to recognize who is using a "real" Social Security number and who isn't.  To suggest this is an insurmountable problem is ridiculous.  American Express does very well, thank you, while keeping track of who is using their credit cards.  VISA knows exactly how much credit an individual has in their account in real time.  To suggest the government couldn't come up with a similar computerized system is beyond belief.  I take that back.  The government probably couldn't come up with a reliable system to track cases of identity fraud when it comes to employers hiring illegals.  The private sector would do a much better job of creating a system that's foolproof--no pun intended.

So, why don't Republicans favor stronger sanctions against those who break our immigration laws?  They receive big bucks from businesses who hire illegals, that’s why.  However, while thinking about the here and now, the majority party may be dooming itself for the future.  It is estimated there are 12 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States, 60% of which come from Latin American points of origin.  If "amnesty" were granted to these 12 million, the true number of those to be put on the fast track to citizenship could be doubled or tripled.  The truth is immediate family members of those who would receive "amnesty" would also become eligible for U.S. citizenship.

If Republicans are fooled into believing this new group will vote their way, I have a bridge someone in the GOP may want to buy.  If 30 to 35 million illegals were suddenly legalized, with their participation in the electoral process, Republicans may never see majority status in Congress for the foreseeable future.  In contrast, Democrats see "legalization" as a political windfall--and well they should.

There are serious concerns whether Republicans can hold on to the majority they have in both Houses after the 2006 election.  By being soft on illegal immigration, the GOP is rushing towards an abyss from which they may never return.  They are alienating their conservative base and this is a formula for disaster.  The trade-off is simple.  Do Republicans want money now or do they want to lose votes later?  In this case, the two are mutually exclusive.  For that matter, all elected officials should be doing the right thing by making sure laws are enforced.

Please press one, if you feel Republicans are not getting the message concerning illegal immigration.

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

Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham: Powerful or Power-less

Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza

Fine.  Senator John McCain of Arizona will be the Republican Party's candidate for the presidency of the United States.  Is McCain perfect?  No, but who is?  However, McCain's policies do leave much to be desired.  Here's the short list:  McCain/Feingold; Gang of 14; McCain/Kennedy (amnesty for illegal immigrants); failed to support Bush tax cuts; voted for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research; and voted against drilling in ANWR--which would have lessened America's dependence on foreign oil.  The dominant media does like McCain, well, that's until Barack Hussein Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton secure the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.  After that, the press will descend upon McCain like a pack of hyenas who have been on a two week fast.

How did we get to this point, you may be asking yourself.  How did we get to the point where the GOP's choice for president is a man whose closest friend in the U.S. Senate is a socially liberal Democrat?  Thy name be Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and others.  You see Limbaugh, Hannity and Ingraham believed they were the true power brokers in the Republican Party.  They thought they were more powerful than the Washington, D.C. "Inside the Beltway" movers and shakers.  They thought they were more powerful than the dominant media and they thought they were more powerful than the American people, but they were wrong.

It all started right after the results of the Iowa caucuses came in.  The surprise winner was former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.  Huckabee was not liked by the talk radio sect.  Though he was right on target concerning his position on issues like protecting the Second Amendment, protecting the institution of marriage, protecting the innocent unborn, you name it, Huckabee was on the right side of the social issues as far as the pro-family movement is concerned which dominates the GOP's political base.  But Limbaugh and his gang have redefined what it means to be a conservative.  They see conservatism as having much more to do with free trade and a global economy.  Social issues are way down on their list.  One need only recall some of the things said by Ann Coulter to prove this fact.  The best-selling author said she would rather vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton than John McCain.  The last I heard, Obama and Clinton were arguing over who would allow the killing of more unborn children.  So Huckabee was unacceptable and, between Iowa and New Hampshire, Sean Hannity (FOX News) and people like Laura Ingraham marginalized Huckabee as much as possible.

At this point, Limbaugh's gang was still counting on former Sen. Fred Thompson to come charging to the rescue.  The only problem is, Thompson didn't have a horse and the walk to the White House was much too far for a man who only played the president in movies.  But Thompson stayed in the race long enough to help defeat Huckabee in the South Carolina primary.  The only problem was Huckabee's political tormentor in South Carolina happened to be McCain--who headed off to Florida with a full head of steam.

The Limbaugh gang was in trouble, but all wasn't lost--at least not yet.  In Florida, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani waited.  Hannity liked him so much he called him "Rudy."  The only problem was Giuliani had as much in common with values voters as Amy Winehouse had with Mother Teresa.

Giuliani went down in flames in the sunshine state and McCain's momentum started to build.  The Limbaugh gang was really starting to get frightened now, so they jumped on the bandwagon of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney--also known as Governor Flip-Flop.

It was all laid out in front of the American people.  The Limbaugh gang supported Mitt Romney as a last resort and the rest of the mob was sent out to destroy McCain and Huckabee to the best of their ability.  Heck, before the primary in Florida, Hannity told his audience Huckabee had dropped out of the race, leaving the state for greener pastures.  Of course, this wasn't true, but the Limbaugh gang was desperate.

On Super Tuesday, things really got bad.  McCain won in all the states Republicans can't win in November.  Romney won a state here and there and Huckabee won across the South--exactly where Republicans have to win to capture the White House.  Then came the blackest day of all for the Limbaugh gang.  Romney refused to dip his hand into the family piggy bank any more.  Well, he may have wanted to, but Mrs. Romney was getting the rolling pin ready, so that option was eliminated before it was put forth for consideration in the Romney household.  Romney was out, and the Limbaugh gang were without transportation.  They didn't have a horse to ride.  They didn't even have a scooter in the race.  The only ones left standing were John McCain and Mike Huckabee.

You know the rest of the story.  It's sad, very sad.  At least for some people who thought they were very powerful, but weren't.  Let me put it this way.  They tampered with things and left us with a Republican presidential candidate who considers it a good day if he wakes up in the morning.  Sorry if this is a bit harsh, but if McCain serves two terms, he would be over 80 years old.  That's right.  Today's 80's are the 70's; and today's 70's are the 60's and...

Is Rush Limbaugh and his gang powerful?  I don't think so.  In fact, I'd say the Limbaugh gang took a fairly good whoopin' in recent months, but that's not counting spin.  We can pretend talk radio has a tremendous influence on American politics, if we want, and nobody would mind.  One thing that's for sure, Rush Limbaugh wouldn't.

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

Oprah Won't Tell You Why They Kill...The Left Would Get Angry With Her

Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

So, it happens again, this time at Northern Illinois University.  Five students are killed by a mad man, numerous others are wounded and then the killer takes his own life.

For the next few weeks, we will be hearing loads of speculation as to why.  Some will blame the DeKalb, Illinois killings on guns.  Some will say the lack of guns at the University prevented school security from defending the innocent.  And then some will go into the deeper, psychological explanations for why these young people kill.  But many will miss the mark.

As someone who worked with young people in the early part of my professional career, the answer for the mayhem we are seeing today in elementary schools, high schools and colleges stems from the influence of the late 1960's.  Yes, I'm going to do some finger-pointing, but you may not have heard this tact before.

"I'M SPECIAL"

From the time they are born, until the day they walk out of college, young people are told they are special.  It is a phenomenon which reaches back to the Spock methodology of child-rearing.  Dr. Benjamin Spock believed in a modality of parenting that was contrary to what was believed to be good child-rearing for eons.  Perhaps what influenced an entire generation most was how Spock instructed parents regarding reward and punishment.

But what has turned young people into killers?  I believe it is because they have been told they are "special."  In fact, they are so "special," the emphasis in now totally on reward, as Spock's teaching seemed to suggest.

What happens when a child is told they are "special" and real life teaches them a different lesson?  They become targets for ridicule or teasing in schools.  They don't make the cheerleading team or the basketball squad.  Their minds do not have the ability to process such failures because they haven't been given the tools to do so.

They are led to believe they cannot be the victims of criticism or teasing.  In America, schools now have rules against bullying, as if bullying was sanctioned forty years ago.  Such rules don't stop bullying, they simply reinforce the idea that students will not face such injustice in their lives.  Subsequently, there's no need to be prepared for its occurrence.

From not keeping score during sporting events to giving trophies to everyone, the message is there are no losers and anyone who would tell you something different is subject to punishment themselves.

However, what gets lost in this type of environment?  Children no longer learn sportsmanship.  If they never lose, they never learn how to lose.  They buy into the "I'm special" mindset and how can you blame them?  Everyone wants to feel special.  It's part of our human nature.  But, in the past, a special feeling came from accomplishment and reward for a job well done.  Today, young people are rewarded for just being there and it has created a problem which some psychiatrists would say is rooted in narcissistic behavior.

Let us add to this mix a culture steeped in sex and violence.  Videogames have become outlets of aggression for some children, but, for others, it's just not enough.  It might be one in a million or less; but what happens to the child who, all their life, has been told they are "special" and the real world brings reality crashing down upon them?

That's what we are seeing with the rash of mass murders in our nation's schools and universities.  Young people, who sometimes are only controlled by the over-prescribing of medication, are acting out in the most violent ways.  In every case we have seen in recent years, the killers are virtual loners or outcasts who just don't fit in with their peers.  So, they remedy the situation the only way they have been taught by our culture:  How dare these people not think I'm not special?  Then, they become special.  They wipe out everything which represents a contrarian message which has been drilled into their heads for years.  Their tormentors die.  The killers achieve another sacred goal in today's society--fame.  However, they must destroy themselves afterward because facing the inevitable condemnation which will soon follow is impossible for them to comprehend or deal with.

Yes, we have sometimes unknowingly created the monsters which, all too often, bring death and destruction to communities across the nation.  Our culture has stood by and permitted children to be exposed to something which was unhealthy and stifled their growth as human beings.  There are those who will defend the killers and claim even more needs to be done to shelter these individuals from the real world.

Oprah Winfrey will never have a show which assigns blame where blame belongs.  She is part of a system which advocates the "just take a time out" philosophy of child-rearing.  In reality, it is a lazy form of parenting which all too many have been willing to adopt.  After all, it takes time to set limits on a child and follow through with punishment.  It's a hassle.  It's much easier to be their child's friend--instead of their guiding light--who is sometimes their protector, but always a loving beacon shedding light on what it takes to be a well-rounded individual.

There will be more murders.  There will be more parents called to their kid's schools to identify the body of a beloved son or daughter.  The picture I have painted is not a happy one.  The resolution, however, lies in the hands of parents themselves.  It is unfortunate we have to undo what is done in our nation's public schools.  But, if we don't, there should be no surprise when we hear about what happened at a Midwestern university on a pleasant winter's day.

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

If Obama Becomes President, Let’s Hope He’s Like Ike NOT Like Jack

Commentary by Bill Zettler *

As Barack Hussein Obama becomes more and more likely to be the Democratic nominee for President--either this year or in some future year--he is continually being compared to John F. Kennedy, the 35th President.  My suggestion to Sen. Obama is to NOT “be like Jack” and thereby avoid challenging Kennedy’s title as the most overrated President of the last 100 years.

A few suggestions:

1. Don’t try to do too much too soon.
… Kennedy was inaugurated in January of 1961 and, at the behest of the CIA, immediately undertook plans to invade Cuba 90 days later in the Bay of Pigs fiasco.  This early CIA “slam dunk” was arguably the biggest U.S. military mistake since Custer’s plan to punish the Sioux at Little Big Horn.  Seldom, if ever, has a President looked so inept so early in his presidency.
2. Try to get some meaningful legislation passed before you run.
… This is an area where it is probably too late for Obama, who after four years in the Senate has produced no legislation with his name on the title.  Kennedy was even worse, having spent 14 years (six as Congressman and eight as Senator) without generating any legislation of importance.  He did occasionally attempt to steal the legislation of others.  Senator Hubert Humphrey accused Kennedy of trying to take credit for Humphrey’s farm bills.
3. Brush up on your foreign languages, if you are going to make a speech using foreign words.
… In June 1963 in Berlin, Kennedy famously said “Eich bin ein Berliner", which roughly translated means  “I am a donut”.  Of course, Kennedy had always been a mediocre student and had trouble with foreign languages.  Blame this one on his speech writers.
4. Don’t promote the overthrow of any allied head of state.
… In 1963 at the urging of the ambassador to South Viet Nam and potential 1964 Presidential opponent Henry Cabot Lodge, Kennedy authorized the elimination of President Ngo Diem. The resulting chaos led to the eventual destruction of Vietnam.  No less authority than Ho Chi Minh critiqued the Diem coup thusly: “I can scarcely believe that the Americans were so stupid”. With the Diem “stupidity” in mind, consider that the grass may not be any greener on the other side of Mushareff and Maliki.
5. Promote wiretaps on foreign threats, not wiretaps on domestic political opponents.
… In 1963 President Kennedy instructed Attorney General Robert Kennedy to wiretap Martin Luther King Jr.’s home and office phones.  This could be considered political, since Dr. King was a Republican.  That means wiretap Al Qaeda, not Jesse Jackson.
6. Do not use civil rights as a political tool.
… Kennedy voted against the Eisenhower Civil Rights Act of 1957 not once, but twice.  The first time to send the legislation to the Judiciary committee where it would have died under the segregationist committee chairman John Stennis of Mississippi.  After that attempt failed, Kennedy voted to make all lawsuits under the act to be trial by jury.  This, in effect, would result in zero convictions since all-white juries in the south would never convict a white lawbreaker.  This does not mean Kennedy was a racist, but it does mean he was a cold, calculating politician--not some high-minded moralist.  He voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1957 because A: he wanted to curry favor with southern Democrats for the 1960 nomination; B: he did not want Lyndon Johnson to get credit for passing the law because Johnson was a potential rival for the nomination; and C: the overwhelming majority of blacks were Republicans and had supported Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956.
7. Be a man of the people, not a man of the elitists.
… Kennedy surrounded himself with east coast elitists like Arthur Schlesinger and John Kenneth Galbraith.  Keep in mind the vast, overwhelming majority of very smart Americans did not go to Harvard or any Ivy League school.  Sign up some assistants from Kansas and Nebraska and Idaho not just New York, Massachusetts and California.
8. Remember...backing down to foreign threats results in more threats, not fewer.
… Nikita Kruschev thought Kennedy was inexperienced and naïve (sound like anybody you know?). After the Bay of Pigs fiasco in April, Kruschev decided to build the Berlin Wall in August 1961 believing, correctly, that Kennedy would do nothing in return.  Kruschev saw Kennedy’s conciliatory approach to negotiations a sign of weakness and decided he would push the young President as far as he would go.  This led directly to missiles in Cuba and the ensuing crisis.  Remember, before Cuba, we had missiles in Turkey pointed at Russia and plans to overthrow Castro.  Afterwards, we had neither.  The Soviets gave up absolutely nothing, since they did not have missiles in Cuba before the fall of 1963.  Basically, the short ugly Russian ate the pretty boy president’s lunch. Keep this in mind when negotiating with our enemies such as Ahmadinejad.  History will most certainly be less kind to you than it has been to Kennedy.
9. Don’t believe everything you are told.
… The first President to have Martin Luther King Jr. to the White House for meetings was Eisenhower, not Kennedy.
… The first President of the 20th century to initiate and pass Civil Rights legislation was Eisenhower, not Kennedy.
… The first President to use federal troops to enforce civil rights was Eisenhower, not Kennedy.  He sent the 101st Airborne to Arkansas to enforce integration at Little Rock High School.
… The first President to appoint a black to an executive position (Frederic Morrow) in the White House was Eisenhower, not Kennedy.

Under Eisenhower, the country had eight straight years of economic growth and prosperity.  Eisenhower also kept the Soviet Union in check.  Why do you think Kruschev waited for Kennedy to put up the Berlin Wall?  Because he knew the old general could not be bluffed--unlike his young, inexperienced successor.

So, Senator Obama, since security and civil rights were more advanced under the Eisenhower administration than the Kennedy administration, perhaps you should be more like Ike and less like Jack.

Bill Zettler is a contributing editor to RFFM.org

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

Huckabee good on taxes long ago and he personally wrote me about it

Was I the first to ... ?

Commentary by Dan Gura *

Back in 2002, I was a columnist for the Lake Zurich Courier, a Pioneer Press newspaper owned by the Chicago Sun-Times.

At that time, our community was involved in a nasty referendum battle to make District 95's school teachers rich beyond the dreams of King Midas.  (The highest paid teacher was paid over $105,000 that year).  As a taxpayer, and a founding member of the loyal opposition group, I sought examples of financial prudence and fiscal responsibility in the public sector.  I found few--very few--politicians who did not consider private wealth to actually be a public asset, to be seized (through onerous taxation) and redistributed as they deemed appropriate.  The administration attempted to embarrass those who thought they were better stewards of their own money with the mantra, "if you are willing to invest little more than the cost of a cup of Starbucks coffee a day we can achieve academic excellence."  (Though they squeaked out a victory, gave hefty across the board pay raises and reduced class sizes, IGAP test scores have remained unchanged).

I did learn of one man with a bold plan to bring equity to the table.  I began exchanging correspondence with then Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee regarding his fiscal epiphany.  He was fed up with special interest groups demanding he raise taxes for their pet projects during the "current economic slowdown."  He wrote "at a time like this, any responsible government entity should cut its spending rather than ask the citizens to contribute more…but there's nothing in the law that prohibits those who believe they aren't paying enough taxes from writing a check to the State of Arkansas.  Maybe this will make them feel better."

Huckabee said he carries a pocketful of pre-addressed envelopes with him at all times.  Whenever someone tries to talk about a tax increase to support their pet project he just pulls one out and says "mail your check in." This way, those who believe we should be paying more taxes can set an example for others--who think as they do--by making a voluntary contribution to the state.

I explained his "Tax Me More Fund" in a column which appeared on Thursday, February 7, 2002 and suggested the Land of Lincoln adopt his plan.

Until the current election cycle, this column was memorable for me because it was the last one I wrote for the paper before being fired for being too Christian, too conservative and too controversial.  Like Ikarus, I too flew too close to the sun and my wax wings melted--only my sun was the poison pens of the local PTA and other tax wastrels who wished to separate homeowners from their hard-earned money.

Here comes the "was I the first" prognostication part.  Among the lines which my editor, a card-carrying uber-liberal Democrat, cited when he fired me was, "Governor Mike Huckabee has produced a plan so bodacious, so visionary, and so what America needs now that I sincerely hope he runs for president in 2008.  (W will be re-elected in a landslide in '04)."

While I cannot take credit for inspiring him to run for president, the letter he sent (which I have framed on my wall next to an autographed picture) shows he did, in fact, read my column.  It says in part, "Dan, I am thrilled that you were able to use the information from my 'Tax Me More Fund' to support your cause.  Thank you for your vote of confidence.  Please know I will do my best to encourage responsible spending of taxpayer money.  I am thankful that people like you will do the same!  Again, thanks for writing and for your support."

So, there you have it.  Huck in '08, encouraged in '02.

By the way, I eventually received a response from Illinois' then Governor, now prisoner, George Ryan--who chided me, "during the course of my career in state government, the overwhelming sentiment among Illinois' citizens has been 'tax me less,' not 'tax me more.'"  The state never did adopt the "Tax Me More Fund" and I did not frame that letter.

Dan Gura is a contributing editor to RFFM.org

Caption for photo: Autographed picture Mike Huckabee sent to Dan Gura in 2002.

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