RFFM.ORG

Fiscal Conservatism Is A Good Message: Inability To Articulate This Message Is Hurting America

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

Most of us who fall within the category of baby boomers can explain why small government and low taxation served our nation very well.  At least we should be able to.  A little more than a quarter century ago, the norm included one parent who brought home an income which supported an entire family.  Of course, government programs, including the GI Bill, made it possible for millions of families to join the middle class after World War II.  But, all the same, jobs in manufacturing were sufficient to bring reality to the well-turned phrase, "a rising tide lifts all boats."

My Father was a baker.  He learned his skills in the Merchant Marines, before he plied his trade in the private sector after World War II.  He made a salary sufficient to raise a family, buy a modest home in the suburbs and put away enough savings to send his children to institutions of higher learning.

Today, such a vision of domestic tranquility is a thing of the past.  In practically every circumstance, it now takes two parents to provide the same quality of life, as the parents of baby boomers enjoyed a mere generation ago.

What has changed?  Big government and higher taxes has forced families to adopt a completely different way of looking at what it takes to provide quality of life in the 21st century.  The days of a lone breadwinner in a household are long gone.  This has created many new problems in our society.  Children who were once called latch-key kids are now the norm and this cultural phenomenon has led to problems unforeseen thirty or forty years ago.

Here is something we should have learned.  Big government and high taxation has been a curse on America and its society.  Unfortunately, Republicans have, for the most part, failed to explain these concepts to the average citizen.  Republicans are now looked upon as greedy, money-grubbers who seek lower taxation merely to line their pockets with cash.  On the other hand, Democrats are seen as the champions of the dwindling middle class, the saviors of the downtrodden and the only hope for those who haven't obtained the American dream.

Republicans can blame no one else for this misperception of their philosophy.  Indeed, in some cases, this description is a reality.  There are Republicans and Democrats who want more and more, but are willing to give less and less back.  But Republicans are saddled with a negative image of greed that will last until we learn how to articulate our message better.

Will we ever see a day when the salary of one parent will be able to purchase a nice home and send two, three or more children to college?  The answer to that question is probably no.  The high taxation genie is out of the bottle and, once that monster escaped, it unleashed big government with it.

Sadly, the consequences have been disastrous for the United States.  Our nation's schools have taken more and more responsibility for the rearing of children.  Government regulations have made it harder for small businesses to flourish.  And government waste has become something that is expected.

You would think Republicans would be able to articulate the damage that big government and higher taxation has wrought on the country.  But there are those who are so far removed from the days of rugged individualism and citizen government they do not have the ability to present this argument in a rationale form.

This inability leads to dire consequences.  Today, polling indicates many believe government should be bigger and wage earners should be willing to give more of their income in taxes to demonstrate good citizenship.  In reality, our society has been turned upside down, to the point where government supposedly knows what's best for children than parents do and on and on and on.  Yet Republicans do not face an impossible task.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what has gone wrong in what still is a nation where a better future can be obtained for each of its citizens.  By now, it should be plain for anyone with a modicum of common sense to understand the Great Society experiment of the 1960's failed miserably.  In the same sense, it should be easy to comprehend the remnants from that failed experiment have taken root in America's institutions, including education, business and, most important, society.

Perhaps it is only a matter of education.  If conservative Republicans--and Democrats for that matter--can learn and articulate that the amount of money it takes to incarcerate an individual for one year could be used to put that same individual through four years of college, possibly the message would start to sink in.

You see, we are beyond the point of just saying lower taxes and smaller government will fix all our problems.  High taxes and big government have done damage which needs to be repaired.  However, government can bring us back to sanity through the institution of reasonable programs which re-assert the importance of family and community.  It's not good enough to just say, "we need to keep more of our money."  But such a statement is not an unobtainable goal.  We can get there.  However, it will take more than hollow platitudes and catchy phrases like hope and change.

Unfortunately, big government and high taxation is here to stay, at least for a while.  Yet like a recovering addict, our nation can wean itself off of this deadly formula which has brought our culture to the brink.  The question is:  Do we have it within us to do something very hard?  That is a question only the American people can answer.

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

Obama Hurting Democratic Party: Worse Yet, Obama/Wright Hurting America

Obama's Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, May Be Setting U.S. Race Relations Back 20 Years

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

You will never see these sentiments expressed in the dominant media.  You won't read such an editorial in the pages of Newsweek.  You won't hear such views voiced on ABC's World News Tonight.  You will not come across such perspectives in a Sunday edition of the Washington Post.  You see, the dominant liberal media in America still loves Barack Hussein Obama and he is under a clock of protection that even Hillary Rodham Clinton envies.

And, no, I won't shy away from using the word Hussein when speaking of the Democrats leading presidential candidate.  There was John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson and Richard Milhous Nixon after that.  Both Presidents Bush middle names were frequently used and so was that of William Jefferson Clinton.  Or is there something we aren't supposed to think of when we hear the name Barack Hussein Obama?  I will leave that up to the ears of the beholder.

But, as far as my assertion that Mr. Obama gets special treatment from the press, someone needs to speak with Hillary Clinton in a candid moment about that subject.  But, for a moment, let me speak for her.  For nearly a month, the junior Senator from Illinois has been trying out nearly every story in the book on Americans regarding his relationship with Jeremiah Wright, the former Pastor of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ.  During that time, Obama has fallen dramatically in the polls.  A man who once seemed like he had the presidential nomination for the Democratic Party in his hands is now considered an albatross by some political observers who predict a sure victory for Republicans--if Obama is indeed the Democratic presidential nominee.  No, they won't say that on the NBC Nightly News, but there are serious questions of whether Obama is electable.

It has been an amazing turn of events and I never thought I would find myself saying what I'm about to say.  Hillary Clinton has not received a fair shake from a media which is still holding to a fleeting call for "hope" and "change".  In recent days, Mrs. Clinton has had to answer questions about whether she had to duck from sniper fire in the late 1990's during a visit to Kosovo in her duties as First Lady.  Mrs. Clinton over-exaggerated the danger she was in and, being a man, I truly understand the tendency.  However, the media's darling, Barack Obama, was under relentless political fire for his failure to kick Jeremiah Wright to the curb for his outlandish hate-filled statements while he was willing to throw his own grandmother under the bus that was leaving that curb.  In no way did the Clinton faux pas match the severity of Obama's problems.  The former First Lady didn't say she was dodging gun fire for 20 years.  Mrs. Clinton didn't say she had to throw her body over her daughter's to protect Chelsea from an errant grenade.  Sen. Clinton simply did what most politicians do and exaggerated a bit--no harm, no foul.

In contrast, Sen. Obama may have set race relations back in the United States by 20 years.  His spiritual leader says America got what she deserved on September 11, 2001.  His spiritual leader said the U.S. government was intentionally infecting blacks with AIDS.  Obama's spiritual leader damned the United States and demonstrated a devilish pride while doing so.

Obama claims he didn't know Wright held such radical views.  Well, Obama has changed his story a number of times regarding Wright and, while doing so, he used the words "typical white person" while backing the bus over his poor grandmother again.

There was a type of suspension of disbelief going on in America, before the Wright controversy came to light.  The mainstream media was trying to fool itself into believing race would not play a role in the election, if Obama were the Democratic presidential nominee.  It's as though the dominant press was in denial of a reality which lurked just below the surface of everyday life.  Sadly, it was Obama himself who put the issue of race front and center in his quest for the presidency and the press could not blame the usual suspects.  No, they won't be able to blame an Obama failure on so-called white bigots from Mississippi.  No, they won't be able to blame an Obama defeat on so-called unsophisticated steel workers from Ohio either. And, no, they won't be able to blame an Obama loss on the Hispanic voting bloc.

The only one to blame was--and is--Obama himself.  And there are still questions that need to be asked and answered by the Illinois Senator.  How much impact did Jeremiah Wright, Obama's spiritual role model, have on him for 20 years?  What views of Wright's does Obama embrace and what views of Wright's does Obama reject?  With these questions still unanswered, if Americans had doubts about Obama's true feelings concerning his country, could you blame them?  Thought the dominant press won't go there, the flap over Jeremiah Wright has hurt this nation deeply.

A man who was supposed to be beyond race has left a nation's people questioning whether all African-Americans share Wright's opinions.  Obama's refusal to unequivocally reject Wright and his teachings have raised doubts about blacks that should have been put to rest long ago.

I personally do not believe most African-Americans share the hate-filled opinions voiced by Jeremiah Wright.  Many African-Americans have fought and died for their country, while Wright sprayed his venom over his congregation like a poisonous snake saturating its prey.  Hopefully, Wright's views will only be seen as the ridiculous rantings of a hateful man.  If Barack Obama is not politically intelligent enough to totally divorce himself from Wright, he doesn't deserve to be president.

But Obama should put his political aspirations aside for a moment.  Obama should think about sacrifices made by men like Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.--men who knew there were injustices in the past, but individuals who saw hope for the future, not hate. 

It's time to stand up, Mr. Obama.  It's time to put politics aside and think about the welfare of your country and all its people--no matter what their color.  Maybe then your wife could be proud of the United States--for a second time in her life.

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

From the Archives: Agenda-Driven Media Responsible For Giving Soldier False Impression Nation Does Not Support Troops

This column was originally published Nov. 4, 2006 and written by Daniel Zanoza

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

******

EDITOR'S NOTE:  For information on how to send a care package or forward individual e-mails or letters to a serviceman or woman in Afghanistan or Iraq, contact the Pentagon at: (703) 545-6700. 

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

Romney Was Wearing An Earpiece During The Debate? Sounds Like V-P Material to Me

RFFM.org Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza

I was sitting there, eating popcorn and watching one of the Republican presidential debates.  Sounds like real entertainment, but that should tell you something about my life these days.  Don't ask me which debate it was because they all seemed to run together like those old Bowery Boys episodes we were forced to watch before cable gave us 98 channels of infomercials.  But next up for questioning was former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and the moderator was asking him something about the economy.  Suddenly, I heard a voice, very low, but very clearly say "low taxes."  I thought I was losing my mind or let's say more of it.  I quickly headed to the medicine cabinet for one of my anxiety pills before settling back down to watch the rest of the event.

However, my mind just couldn't get off of it.  What was that voice, I said to myself.  Did anyone else hear it?  Did someone slip me a hallucinogenic they had saved from the 60's?  No, that was out of the question.  My wife was always a tea-totaler and no one else was in the house.  But someone was messing with my mind, yet I just had to let it go, as one of those "Believe It Or Not" episodes.

A few days later, one of the cable networks ran a story on the ethereal, bodiless voice that had an unusual interest in taxation.  Ah ha, I said to myself.  I didn't need that pill after all.  Someone else heard it, too and I cancelled the emergency appointment I had made with my psychiatrist and moved it back to its regular time.

"Just feedback," said the news report and nothing more was said about it in the mainstream media.  "Feedback," I said to myself, "feedback giving a political candidate a tip on how to answer a question during a political debate?"  Something didn't smell right here and it wasn't me because I had just taken my weekly shower.  Now the networks were in on it and where there's smoke, there's usually fire.

You see, the easiest way to tell there's validity to a conspiracy theory is to watch how the dominant media acts.  Do they give the subject short shrift?  Do they give the subject proper consideration?  Or do they totally ignore the issue, acting as though nothing happened?

I've seen it a number of times during my life.  The press gave little credence to the possibility John F. Kennedy's assassination was the result of a conspiracy.  There was practically no attention from the dominant media regarding the possibility Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were not the only ones responsible for the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.  And don't forget Flight 800.  Even though National Guard pilots gave sworn testimony the airliner was shot down by a ground to air missile, the dominant press begrudgingly gave the theory consideration and only because they were forced to.

Folks, when in doubt, watch the media.  Their action or inaction will reveal the truth about a subject every time.

Of course, finding out about a hidden microphone in a political candidate's ear isn't a world shaking revelation.  But when Matt Drudge reported on the subject, the issue received more attention.  I was thankful.  Believe it or not, I actually thought--for a brief moment--that all five Republican candidates had midgets hidden underneath their podiums, feeding them the answers to the tough questions.  Excuse me, they wouldn't have been midgets, they would have been vertically challenged individuals, each with an extraordinary grasp of the political world.  But all the candidates would have had to agree to the help they would have received concerning short answers.  No, I finally came to my senses and said that couldn't be it.  It would have been too warm for anyone to be under that podium for nearly two hours, especially with all the hot air emanating from the close proximity of all those politicians.

It seems someone close to Gov. Romney has admitted to the fact Romney indeed was using an earpiece in that January debate.  Well, the former Romney aide hasn't signed an affidavit attesting to the fact his former boss needed to be told when an answer to a question had something to do with lower taxes.  However, it sounds like something Romney would do.

The former Massachusetts Governor seems to be a man who would want all the bases covered.  He is a hard, shrewd businessman who believes his type of management skills has translated well into the realm of politics.  That's how Romney could be pro-abortion and in favor of special rights for homosexuals while he was the Governor of Massachusetts.  Then, when he decided to run for president, he made a 180 degree turn regarding these social issues.  It's called market flexibility.  Well, since I found out the truth about that little voice I heard one winter's evening, I'm sure feeling better about myself.  No, my candidate didn't win the presidential nomination of the Republican Party.  And, no, I didn't win the Lottery either (that would be impossible because I never play it, but stranger things have happened).

At least I know I have peace of mind, instead of thinking my mind was going to pieces.  Oh, as far as Romney being a leading Vice-presidential contender.  Should character matter when a presidential nominee chooses his running mate?  I'll leave that up to John McCain and others who are way smarter than me...or is it I?

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

Obama's spiritual leader Jeremiah Wright criticized by some African-American clergy

For more on the Obama / Wright controversy read Rev. L. Dowell's comments at:
http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/03/obama-controver.html#comment-108018892  and then read Dr. Frank Joseph's comments at: http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/03/obama-controver.html#comment-108053592

HAPPY EASTER

We at RFFM.org would like to wish everyone a blessed Easter.

May you have the peace Jesus Christ brought us through the sacrifice He made on the cross and His eventual defeat of death and sin which he gave mankind through His resurrection. 

We would also like to wish our Jewish brethern a happy and blessed Passover which will begin on Saturday, April 19th.

Obama Controversy: How Many African-American Churches Are Like Jeremiah Wright's?

Beyond Politics: Black Liberation Theology, America and the Question of Race   

RFFM.org Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza

For a while, I had decided not to write anything on the Jeremiah Wright/Barack Obama controversy.  After all, it's all been said, hasn't it?  Every newspaper had the story on its front page and the commentary sections overflowed with all too wise speculation on the issue.  Why would Barack Obama attend a church where such hate was fomented from the pulpit for 20 years?  Did Obama allay concerns many had with him, after the junior senator from Illinois gave his speech on the issue of race?

The responses were typical.  After Obama's speech, the Left fell all over itself in praise of the Democratic presidential frontrunner almost to the point of hilarity.  Conservatives said Obama left many questions to be answered regarding the hateful words of Rev. Wright.  The fact is, I'm uncomfortable even referring to the man as a Reverend.  After all, the word reverend is a noun and an adjective.  I'll leave this debate for linguists and philosophers, but I do know what a man of God should be saying from a Christian pulpit.

That's why I decided to write this column.  The controversy over Wright introduced me to a new phrase, black liberation theology.  I did not know there was such a thing.  I was fully aware that ministers, or supposed men of God of all colors, use their position in God's church to spew hatred.  After all, the Ku Klux Klan claims it is doing the Lord's work in the evil that organization has espoused for nearly 150 years.  However, I didn't know men like Jeremiah Wright were spreading their anger in African-American churches and, to this point, I don't know how many men like Wright there are across America.

But Wright certainly answered some questions I had about why the issue of race never seems to go away in the United States.  Well, let me take that back.  Among most Americans, race has become less of an issue of contention than it was forty years ago.  Most Americans are not racist.  They see discrimination as an ugly thing and the people of our nation, for the most part, would like to see racial unity become a reality and not just a dream.

But imagine for a moment, it is 1988 and you are sitting in a church where black liberation theology is coming at you in waves from the dais.  Now imagine you are five years old and you hear this hateful rhetoric every Sunday for the next 20 years.

Suddenly, things became clear to me.  No wonder we cannot get over the race issue in this country.  Individuals like Mr. Wright continually throw gasoline on the simmering embers of racial hatred which does exist in this country in dark, dank places.  These fires burn into the minds of thousands of African-Americans.  Or is it millions of African-Americans?  What is the answer?  How many Jeremiah Wrights are out there?  I don't know, but I shudder when I think about the possible answer.

Christ taught us to love and sacrifice for our neighbor.  He told us to damn no one and forgive everyone, especially our enemies or those who have done us wrong in the past.  These hardly sound like the words of Mr. Wright or perhaps a better name for the man would be Mr. Wrong.

I cannot blame African-Americans if they have a deep underlining mistrust for whites, if this is what they have been taught weekly, since childhood.

Sen. Obama has used a number of excuses regarding his attendance at Mr. Wright's church.  First Obama said he wasn't aware of Wright's controversial statements.  Then Obama said he was never present when Wright took off on one of his hate-filled tangents.  Next the Illinois Senator said he was aware of the controversy surrounding his minister, but leaving the church would have been like leaving a family member, an uncle to be exact.

I have attended many churches in my life.  There have been numerous times where a preacher or church has held views which were not Scriptural.  My first obligation as a Christian was to address these issues with the minister or with the church on the whole.  If the answer to my question did not conform to God's word, my family would leave that church.  Indeed I have left churches before, though never because a minister was damning America or blaming another race for anything. 

The Obama's are an intelligent couple.  They have educations most people in America can only dream about.  But it took 20 years for Sen. Obama to understand that Wright's words were hateful?  Many have written about the issue of Obama's judgment concerning this matter, but is it possible Obama believes in Wright's teachings?  Did Obama stay at the church because Wright's message spoke to him?  After all, Obama's wife, Michelle, claims she had never been proud of her country until recently.  These are some important personal questions which Obama may or may not address.  Yet the bigger issue is whether America can ever come to a state of racial healing, if there are thousands of so-called preachers like Wright across the U.S. 

The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. did not preach black liberation theology, Louis Farrakhan does.

Obama's speech about race was important, but he had a daunting task in front of him.  Just days after the debate over Wright came to a boil, Obama used the words "typical white person" in reference to his grandmother and the bigotry he has assigned to her.  Perhaps Sen. Obama has bought into the "Reverend" Wright's philosophy.  If Obama has, he should tell us and then Americans could decide whether a man holding these views could be a uniter or a divider.  Indeed, if he believes in Wright's teachings, is Obama qualified to be President of the United States?

You see, the flap over Wright goes much deeper than politics or race.  It speaks to the future of our nation.  From this debate, we get an idea of whether that future will be filled with real hope and change or a never-ending racial divide which will only perpetuate distrust and hate.  This is what's at stake for us all.

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

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

HEROES by Dan Gura

From the Archives -- June 17, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dan Gura interview with Doug Sterner:

Who were your heroes when you were growing up?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The challenge then for us as a nation is to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Autobiographical: Haunted by Decision to Abort: Abortion, A Dark Legacy

A personal reflection by Daniel T. Zanoza

Author's note: A version of the following column first appeared in the Christian Coalition magazine.  It also was posted on the Illinois Leader and, most recently, appeared on the Illinois Family Institute's web site.

Nearly thirty years ago, my wife and I aborted a child. That decision will haunt us for the rest of our lives. Since that time, I've developed deep feelings on the subject of abortion.

There are two primary reasons why I'm pro-life. Besides taking a human life, aborting a child robs society.

Since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, some say over 50 million unborn babies have lost their lives. The city of Chicago and its surrounding area are home to approximately 5.1 million people. The number of babies aborted during the past thirty-four years would re-populate Chicagoland tenfold.

How many doctors, teachers, poets and engineers will the world miss because of abortion? Maybe one of these aborted children could have discovered a cure for cancer or AIDS. In fact, my very own son or daughter might have developed a cure for the blindness that afflicts me today.

How many handicapped children has our culture missed, teaching us compassion and patience? Are we a different society because of the one out of three children, perfect or not, who weren't given the chance to survive? Can it be said the world is a better place because of the Roe v. Wade decision?

I recently asked a friend who supports abortion rights, "If by some miracle, you knew a pregnant woman's child would one day find a cure for Alzheimer's, would you still believe that woman had the right to terminate that pregnancy, depriving mankind of this medical breakthrough?"

It's a rhetorical question that should be pondered before every abortion.

The pro-life contention is simple and straightforward. No one has the right to remove such potential from our society. What the human community has lost due to abortion is incalculable.

This alone should be enough to rethink Roe v. Wade. But there is yet another reason to oppose abortion.

Under Hitler's rule, enforcing death of the innocent was a national right. That madman claimed his nation would be better served through the removal of undesirables--first through harassment and deportation and, ultimately, via the "final solution"--which meant death for millions of human beings.

The question has been asked countless times of the German people who lived in that era: "What did you do while the Holocaust was happening? Did you try to stop it and, if not, why not?"

There will be a day when that question is asked of Americans about abortion. We will have to answer to future generations and, more importantly, to God for what we did or did not do to stop this sin against humanity.

While some say the Holocaust bears little resemblance to abortion in America, many believe that tragic episode in world history is comparable to the carnage which resulted from the passage of Roe v. Wade.

Women who terminate their babies' unborn lives are not monsters. If that were so, I'd be saying the same of my own wife. The point is, like water, humankind will seek its own moral level by standards set within the culture. Regarding the abortion my wife had nearly 30 years ago -- simply, if abortion were not legal, we would have a son or a daughter who could now be raising a family of his or her own. Unfortunately, at the time, a combination of youth and the moral approval implied by abortion's legality resulted in a decision my wife and I have regretted and will regret for the rest of our lives. Slavery was legal, but immoral. The same can be said of abortion.

For 184 years, abortion was considered a sin against God and man in America. Yet, one judicial decision in 1973 threw an entire value system into flux, creating moral confusion and societal tumult.

The lines dividing our nation over this issue seem to grow deeper every day and so do the emotions. There needs to be more dialogue and less posturing. There cannot be a compromise on the subject of abortion because the finality of the practice indeed leaves no room for compromise. When two women claimed to be mothers of the same child, King Solomon suggested the child be cut in half, knowing the true mother would give up her rights to the infant in order for her child to live. In the same sense, women cannot be given a partial right to abortion because the decision is final and irrevocable.

It's not about imposing one belief system over another. It's about personal and societal conscience. Though some disagree with the pro-life position, hopefully, there will come a day when our view can at least be considered noble because it truly stands up to the light of truth.

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

Chicago News Execs Prompted More Thorough Coverage of Obama: Better Grasp of Issues Gave Chicago Journalists The Edge

RFFM.org Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza

Some say it was a skit on Saturday Night Live which promoted better coverage of Barack Obama's presidential campaign.  Others claim it was only a matter of time before the national media started doing its job regarding the junior senator from Illinois.  However, coming from Obama's home state of Illinois the truth is, it was the Chicago press which finally put some hard questions to Obama and credit should be given where credit is due.

Before the Democratic presidential primary in Texas, there were rumblings from sources, including Hillary Clinton's campaign which implied Obama was getting a free ride, possibly all the way to the White House, from journalists who were enamored with the Democratic front-runner.  Even Hillary herself chimed in during one Democratic debate when the former First Lady queried why she was always the first to be questioned during such events? 

Of course, Mrs. Clinton's point was ridiculous.  Usually, candidates relish the opportunity to answer the first question from debate moderators or journalists.  It is usually a sign of frontrunner status, even though there is no hard and fast rule suggesting so.  But, in many cases, the candidate who is usually paid most attention to by the media is generally perceived to be the frontrunner, even though in Mrs. Clinton's case, this wasn't factual.  So I guess she had a point that was not clear to more than a few.

But before last month's Democratic presidential debate in Texas, a press conference with Sen. Barack Obama foretold of some very different things to come.

During the event, Obama seemed to be taken off-guard with some very hard-hitting questions.  The subject of Obama's relationship with political fund-raiser and businessman Antoin "Tony" Rezko was perhaps the topic which received most attention from journalists on that day and it was clear Obama wasn't ready for the onslaught.

Indeed Obama practically hit the ground running when he left the podium with reporters hot on his heels.  It was something completely new for those who have been following the 2008 presidential campaign season.  It would not be much of a reach to speculate Obama himself might have been in shock as well.

What has escaped most political and media observers is the fact much of the informed questioning regarding Rezko came from Chicago reporters, including Carol Marin of WMAQ-TV (NBC Chicago), Mike Flannery of WBBM-TV (CBS Chicago) and a few others.  It was natural the Illinois-based journalists knew more about Sen. Obama and his connections with Rezko--who is now being tried for charges of extortion.

Clearly, the Chicago press corps may be responsible for the change in the journalistic tenor regarding Obama.

"I was proud to see the contingent of Chicago reporters lead the questioning during the news conference in San Antonio," Frank Whittaker, Vice President of News at NBC 5 Chicago (WMAQ-TV) told RFFM.org.  "The Rezko story is complicated, and up until this past weekend there were a lot of unanswered questions.  Carol (Marin) and the other Chicago reporters have been persistent in trying to get answers for our viewers.  After all, that's our job.  I'm glad the national press corps was there to see us at work!"

Up until the now infamous Texas press conference, the national media had become a literal laughing stock.  Saturday Night Live did a hilarious bit portraying Obama as a pampered individual who was the favorite of almost everyone who was covering him.  The criticism did not sit well with those in the media, especially from the national news divisions.  Though this harsh critique had been levied earlier, it appeared as though the Saturday Night Live crowd had shed light on what was a serious situation that could only have gotten worse regarding the almost comical handling of Obama by many in the dominant media.

"CBS 2 sent not one, but two reporters to Texas (political editor Mike Flannery and anchor Rob Johnson) because we wanted to report this hot story firsthand for our audience," Carol Fowler, VP/News Director CBS 2 told RFFM.org.  "We drove our satellite truck from Chicago to San Antonio, so that we had maximum flexibility to move with the candidates.  We took advantage of  the platform to do a half-hour live special after the Clinton and McCain wins that evening...  Being able to question Obama on the top-of-mind issues regarding his relationship with Rezko was just one of many reasons to make the trip.  This man is making news every hour of the day!"

Since that date, Obama has not had it easy, to put it mildly.  Shortly afterwards, the Senator's wife, Michelle Obama, implied her husband's successful campaign was the first time she was proud of her nation.  And, more recently, a flap over Obama's minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has brought problems facing the Obama campaign to the saturation point in the minds of many political observers.

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