RFFM.ORG

O'Reilly's Plan To Boycott Gas Stations On Monday's Dumb: What Does "Body Language" Say?

 

Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza

 

He's a shameless self-promoter.  He bloviates with the best of them and admits it.  And he has one of the most entertaining political shows on television.  I'm talking about Bill O'Reilly and The O'Reilly Factor (FNC--Fox News Channel).

 

However, besides the incredibly useless segment titled, "Body Language" with guest Tanya Reiman, O'Reilly's plan to have Americans boycott purchases of gasoline on Monday's is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.  For those of you who aren't familiar with the Body Language segment, it is almost as bad as his weekly interview with sort of "conservative" comedian and radio show host, Dennis Miller.  Each week, Miller makes a very serious attempt to be funny, but only rarely hits the mark.  However, being the shameless political shill that I am, since Miller started leaning towards the conservative point of view, I started liking the guy.  Well, let's put it this way, now I can stand listening to him whereas a photograph of someone like Bill Maher or Al Franken has me heading for the Dramamine in my medicine cabinet and that air sick bag my Aunt Frieda gave me after her last trip to Florida.  I guess being a pack rat has some benefits after all.

 

But, Bill, how would Americans boycotting Joe's corner gasoline station on Monday's help relieve skyrocketing fuel costs?  Isn't it true company-owned and independent gas stations aren't the ones making a killing off the escalating oil prices?  As I understand it, local distributors make most of their profits from the sale of Twinkies, Coca-Cola and beer.  By the way, isn't it great we are told not to drink and drive, but when I want a cold one, I send my wife to the local Gas City?  Some stations even have drive-ups to make it easier to get alcohol for that long trip across the state or across the nation.  What a country!

 

Again, as usual, I digress.  Won't drivers simply buy more gas on Sunday or some other week day, if they to decide to go along with your suggested Monday boycott?  In fact, wouldn't the same principle apply to a Monday gasoline boycott as they do to cities, counties and states which don't sell alcohol on Sunday's?  Otis Campbell didn't go through the D.T.'s in Mayberry because Mayberry was located in a dry county.  Otis made his plans to get his fire water in other ways and so will those who will need to drive their cars on the day of your planned boycott.

 

What would Body Language specialist Tonya Reiman say about your idea?  You know who I'm talking about.  Some of your segments with her were funnier than Dennis Miller could ever be.  The only problem is, Ms. Reiman wasn't trying to be funny. 

 

"Bill, do you notice that Mrs. Smith's right eyebrow is arched a bit?"

 

"No, Tanya, what does that mean?"

 

"Well, it doesn't mean much, but Mrs. Smith's elbow is pointed outward and that tells us a lot."

 

"Oh, I get it, it's just the same as when Mr. Jones' finger was bent to the left when we analyzed his body language last week."

 

"Well, Bill, it turned out Mr. Jones had actually slammed his finger in his car door after he was fumbling for his keys while trying to hold a six-pack in one hand and pump gas with the other."

 

"Great, Tanya.  Can't wait to have you on next week when we will be analyzing why Barack Obama stutters when he doesn't have a teleprompter."

 

"Well, Bill, Obama's stuttering doesn't have anything to do with body language, but we might talk about how his ears frequently start flapping."

 

"Can't wait, Tanya."

 

Back to your Monday gasoline boycott idea.  The truth is Americans drove 11 billion fewer miles in March of 2008 compared to March of 2007.  It seems either the public is taking fewer unnecessary trips or they simply can't afford to drive as much as they used to.  Here's an idea.  Why don't you suggest viewers call their Congressmen and demand the reduction of fuel taxes?  And while they're on the phone, they could ask why we aren't drilling in ANWR or tapping the vast amounts of offshore oil in the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico.  Then, they can bring up the topic of having the EPA lower the need for multiple gasoline blends across the country which change according to the seasons.  And, finally, your viewers might address the need for a few more refineries to be built in the United States, along with putting aside political correctness when it comes to the safe use of nuclear energy.

 

Here's some of the things your viewers shouldn't discuss with their Congressman.  There shouldn't be legislation mandating every new car get 50 miles to the gallon.  There are many, many people who consider themselves fortunate simply to have an automobile.  Most Americans don't have the luxury of going out and buying the latest $40,000 hybrid.  We also should not play footsy with nations like the former Soviet Union and China which are polluting the world like drunken sailors and sucking up more oil than their fair share.

 

There are some individuals, including Al Gore, who are very happy to see gasoline prices go as high as possible.  Their theory is, the more we pay per gallon, the less we will drive.  The only problem with that philosophy is high gasoline prices hurt the poor the most.  Millionaires don't care how high gas goes.

 

Mr. O'Reilly, I love your show.  America probably learned more about Hillary Clinton after your short interview with the former First Lady than they did following 14,000 primary debates hosted by the likes of former Democratic operatives, including Tim Russert, Chris Matthews and George Stephanopoulos.  Hey, why are all these guys former Democrats and journalists at the same time?  I guess that's a subject for another day.

 

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

Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

McClellan's Book Rocks the Beltway: Problem Is, Who's McClellan and Who Cares?

Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

 

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan recently wrote a book which is highly critical of the George Bush administration.  The only reason I know who Scott McClellan is stems from the fact I am insane.  I spend too much time watching and analyzing politics and, if you don't know who McClellan is, I would suggest you use this fact on a resume to prove you care about the people in the world who matter.

 

However, if you had a chance to watch and read comments from the dominant media concerning McClellan and the revelations in his literary effort, you would think the former White House mouthpiece was a major player who had the President's ear.  Well, if he didn't have the President's ear, you wouldn't know it because McClellan acts as though he was at every major policy meeting the administration ever held.

 

First of all, there's only one reason McClellan wrote this book and that was to make money.  Just a short time ago, he appeared on Bill Maher's HBO show defending Bush policy.  But along the way, someone must have told McClellan if he didn't get into some serious bush-bashing no matter what he knew, his book would quickly be collecting dust on store shelves.

 

The only people who were mesmerized by McClellan's offerings were members of the liberal mainstream media who  traded away their journalistic credibility years ago--if they ever had any in the first place.

 

Does anybody seriously think Scott McClellan's revelations are the talk of grocery store clerks, mechanics or soccer Mom's across America?  Of course not.  The only people who care about McClellan's Bush-bashing are fellow Bush-bashers in the press and a hypersensitive Washington, D.C. elite who are in touch with what Americans care about as much as the man on the moon.

 

McClellan was nothing but an errand boy, told by administration insiders what to say and when.  However, since he was technically in the Bush administration, the liberal press now sees him as a hero willing to come forward with the dark and deep secrets of an evil President and even more evil Vice-president and an administration which they hate with every fiber of their being.  In one month, Scott McClellan will fade away like a Coppertone tan.  But his book may retain some value as a collector's item because most copies will be pitched into the garbage with last Sunday's newspaper inserts.  It's amazing how much the dominant press hates Bush and they're not ashamed of it either.

 

Networks like MSNBC devote entire programs to a conversation with a man who no one outside of Washington, D.C. cares about.  McClellan knew what he was doing.  He ran to a publisher supported by left-wing zealot George Soros, in order to collect on his betrayal of his former employers.  He sold his soul for a good buck and the bucks might not even be that good.  The dominant media will then throw him away like some day-old sushi and we'll never hear from Scott McClellan again.  Perhaps with the type of character he demonstrated in writing his tell-all piece of nothing, we will all be better off for it.

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

Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Obama, Dems, Media, In Denial: Wright and "Bitter" Flap Did Have Impact On White Voters

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

While watching politics for most of my adult life, I never cease to be amazed at how dumb the two major political Parties can be.  And this year may top them all for absurdity.

Heading into the primary season, the Democrats had everything going their way.  George Bush's favorability ratings hovered somewhere around 30%, the Democrats just came off of winning back both Houses of Congress in 2006 and, in general, during the last decade the Republican Party was doing its best imitation of how to govern like Democrats.

 

Hillary Clinton herself had high disapproval numbers, but a faltering economy, an unpopular war and uncontrolled spending was sure to mean Bill would be, once again, frolicking around the White House while his wife was away.  Republicans seemed to make it worse, if that's possible, when they nominated Sen. John McCain to be their presidential candidate--a man who many said agreed more often with the opposition than his own Party.

 

A funny thing happened along the way to November's election.  Out of Illinois came Barack Obama to challenge the former First Lady for the Democratic presidential nod.  Obama was the heart throb of the far Left and the mainstream media loved him.  In fact, calling it love might be an understatement, but since I write a column meant to be read by the entire family, I'll leave it at that.

 

Obama's first big win came in Iowa.  Perhaps the most surprising result of his triumph in the Iowa caucuses was how many white middle-class voters bought his act.  From that moment on, Hillary Clinton was playing catch-up.  Even though she won in New Hampshire--some say with the help of more than a few visitors from New York and Massachusetts--Obama had the momentum.

 

However, suddenly the Rev. Jeremiah Wright popped his head out of a church on the south side of Chicago and he has been reluctant to let go of the limelight ever since.  Unfortunately for Obama, Wright rubbed a lot of people the wrong way.  Wright damned America.  Wright said the United States was responsible for intentionally infecting blacks with AIDS.  This guy was a disaster which went off in the midst of Obama's political run like a bomb shell.  But Obama didn't help himself either.  During a speech in San Francisco, in front of some very wealthy left-wing Democrats, Obama said, "You go into these small towns in ... And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

 

Now if I didn't know better, I would think Obama was trying to throw the race for the presidency.  Perhaps the heat in the kitchen was getting to him and an escape out the back door seemed like a good idea.

 

The only problem for the Democrats was they were committed.  Obama had a small, but big enough lead over Hillary to simply run out the clock and he would be the Democratic Party's presumptive presidential nominee.  However, since the Pennsylvania primary, Obama's candidacy has hardly looked like a juggernaut.  In fact, Hillary Clinton beat him by 40 percentage points in West Virginia and followed up with another impressive performance in Kentucky.  Plus, exit polling seemed to indicate white middle-class voters had changed their opinion about Obama's message of "hope and change, change and hope."

 

What started out as a friendly competition between fellow Senators has turned into a knock-down, drag-out alley fight with allegations including charges of racism, sexism and any other "ism" that would stick to the wall.  Yet the dominant media, which can't see the forest because those doggone trees keep getting in the way, doesn't seem to understand the predicament the Democrats are in.  Perhaps they don't want to understand would be a more accurate statement.

 

The mainstream press keeps on talking about how well Obama did in Iowa and in some western states where Democrats haven't fared well in recent years.  The only problem is Obama won many of these primaries before the Wright controversy and his comments about "bitter" Americans surfaced.  The political picture has changed drastically since the American people unwrapped the Obama package and found out what the surprise was inside.  For the Democrats and the media to deny things have changed regarding sentiments about Obama is akin to playing Russian roulette with a fully-loaded revolver.  EDITOR'S NOTE:  No ill intent meant by the use of above metaphor.

 

So, what's the resolution for the Democrats?  The Party can decide Hillary would be the best candidate by convincing some people called Super Delegates that Obama could never win the general election in November.  Please don't ask me more about Super Delegates.  All I know is these are people chosen by the Party, which claims to represent the common man, but whose vote carries more weight than theirs.  Does that make sense?  Well, it doesn't to me either, but I'm not a Democrat.  If Clinton were given the nomination with the help of these Super Delegates, there literally could be rioting in the streets by African-Americans and, at the very least, blacks wouldn't vote for Hillary in November, so that's out.

 

Maybe the media does recognize the fix the Democrats are in because there is a lot of fantasizing going on about the possibility of Obama choosing Mrs. Clinton for his vice-presidential running mate.  Folks, that ain't gonna happen either.  Could you imagine Obama wondering what Bill was up to, if Hillary indeed became vice-president?  The truth is Hillary Clinton has a better chance of being John McCain's running mate.

 

Yes, the Democrats have managed to paint themselves into a political corner in a year where the door to the White House seemed like it would be closed for many years to come for Republicans.

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

Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Agenda-Driven Media Responsible For Giving Soldier False Impression Nation Does Not Support Troops

By DANIEL T. ZANOZA

From the Archives

Editor' note:  Though the situation in Iraq has shown dramatic improvement since the writing of this column in November of 2006 the premise still applies.  When the situation in Iraq was going badly, the dominant media in America seemed to be joyful in its reporting on that war.  The same media attention was given to our military's efforts in Afghanistan.  Since progress has been made in both nations, the fine work done by U.S. Armed Forces has been neglected for the most part by the media.  Recently, Josh (the soldier who was the topic of this column) has returned safely to America from his tour of duty in Afghanistan.  RFFM.org thanks Josh for his service and remembers those who have paid the ultimate price in the defense of liberty.

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.

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

Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

In Honor Of Our Fallen On Memorial Day: Medal Of Honor Winners

RFFM.org Also Honors All Who Paid the Ultimate Price to Defend Our Freedom

An Interview With Doug Sterner, Creator of Home of Heroes web site

Interview by Dan Gura, Contributing Editor

Gura writes, "Today I offer something not on the lighter side, but one which will make you stand a little straighter, a little prouder to be an American." 

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). 

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.

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. 

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

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Minnesota Rep. Ellison, An Obama Ally, May Be Jeopardizing U.S. Security For The Sake Of Islam

by Rev. Lainie Dowell

How much information is too much information when a nation is at war to publicly disclose about our on-going attempts to achieve a resolute victory over terrorists?
 
Congressman Keith Ellison, a relatively unknown figure from Minneapolis, Minnesota, was elected to the U.S. Congress and took office January 4, 2007.  Ellison is a close friend and political confidante of Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.

Ellison lays claim to being the first African-American from his state and the first Muslim to be seated in Congress.  He was accepted by Americans, but he has not yet accepted America as his nation.  Nevertheless, when anybody raises questions about his loyalty to America, Ellison is quick to label his critics as being bent on smearing his religion.  But what about the man?
 
Every American has the right, the obligation and, indeed, the duty to scrutinize anyone who sits so close to the secrets that keep America safe without their being labeled as bigots.  All because it is fashionable, it is not the American way to stifle debate.
 
When Ellison says, on the one hand, that he accepts his duty to God and country, we have to wonder which God and which country.  Ellison created a controversy when he insisted upon being sworn in to Congress by placing his hand on the Koran.  That's fine.  However, his close affiliation with Minister Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam brings into question his loyalties.  This should be a legitimate concern for all Americans.  Ellison also has a known history of working with CAIR, [Council on American-Islamic Relations] a covert organization with a substantial record indicating the group launders terrorist's money, resulting in members being deported or arrested with some receiving jail sentences.
 
Ellison is known to have been--and still is--unapologetically committed to the cause of Islam.  Radical Islam's stated purpose is to subvert the American form of government and its Judeo-Christian values and bring in its stead, an Islamic nation to America.  The largest mosque in Northern America is located in Dearborn, Michigan, which is the birth state of Ellison and where he lived before taking up residence with his family in Minnesota.
 
Ellison is a spokesman for and advocate of the Muslim move in America to increase their participation in the political arena by offering Islamic groups' political training.  Their purpose is not to uphold the Constitution of the U.S. and defend; in fact, their intent is to discard it and replace it with their own form of Sharia law.
 
Even though Ellison is now serving as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Ellison has failed to understand how protective Americans are of this nation's history and purpose.  Many voices have been raised against his taking office and have been ignored by the mainstream media, because of political correctness surrounding the Islamic question, which is not totally the issue.
 
Those voices were correct, when you stop to consider that Ellison has had no compunction of posting on his congressional website, for all to see, the deliberations concerning whether or not the U.S. military will be pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan, the projected timetables of deployment, the funding and the total lack of support by the Democrats and a few Republicans for the war against terror.  Anybody, especially terrorists, would only have to click a mouse to gain access to all that protects America from its enemies who are waiting and watching for their turn to strike.  And, while those enemies are on Ellison's Congressional web site, they can read the map of Iraq posted there, which pinpoints where our Armed Forces are stationed. 
 
Congressman Ellison's web site url:
http://ellison.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=32
 
I think it's important to note Ellison has placed that map of Iraq on his Congressional site along with his ongoing attempts to get the troops "redeployed" and/or pulled out of Iraq and the region.  Along with that information, the map shows key points in the country.  Many of those identified places have American and coalition military posted there.  Along with what terrorists already know, any detail they gleaned, particularly from a congressman, would be enough to get them to thinking how easy it would be to gain access to troop positions.  Ellison should know it and all in leadership must know that.
 
Because of Ellison's stated Muslim position, we are right to be suspicious and question his actions in that regard.
 
Today's technological and scientific advances have all but obliterated national and international borders.  And the World War II slogan, "Loose lips sink ships," should be replaced by reminders for Americans to "Beware of what you post on the Internet."
 
Our national security, individual peace and societal lifestyle are systematically being weakened from within.  We are being undermined as a nation, by calls for much more defense disclosures--mainly from individuals and organizations which make no secret of their desire to see America's downfall, period.
 
Long before September 11, 2001, we had been given more than sufficient evidence that our nation was being watched by detractors from near and afar.  Nevertheless, the nation went about its business of making laws and arguing about who should lead the next administration, Democrats or Republicans.
 
Meanwhile, we witnessed the on-going destruction of American life and liberty.  We watched as families mourned in public because of the vicious, senseless and inexplicable killing of innocent citizens.  We recall the many promises of former President Bill Clinton to apprehend the murderers.  Yet, they remained free and Americans continued to be vulnerable to their mad plots against us.
 
Monuments were constructed to commemorate victims of the various attacks and the administration changed hands.  America slept in relative peace until that fateful date, September 11, 2001.  President George W. Bush, the new leader, was in office only a short while when this disaster occurred, but he took the position America was no longer going to allow another attack without reprisal.  And the nation joined with him, to affirm its patriotic resolve to secure not only this nation, but also the world's stage.  The "War Against Terror" was on and our brave military men and women voluntarily stepped up to the task.
 
Why hasn't the Congressional leadership followed suit?  There was a shift in leadership which came about because Democrats promised to bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan or redeploy them in nations far from harm's way.
 
Wake up, Congress and Homeland Security!  American citizens are calling on you to stand up and protect us at home and abroad from terrorists without and within, but no one seems to be home.

Rev. Lainie Dowell, Five-Fold Minister
Contact:  [email protected]
Advocacy url:  http://www.clergywomen.org/dowell_sundaysun.html

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

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Mrs. Obama: So, Experimental Abortions on Black American Women Are Okay With You?

by Brent Rooney MSc

     No level-headed American would advocate Nazi-style 'medicine' in which
animal experiments are bypassed and testing is FIRST performed on humans.
Dr. Sharon Camp, President of AGI, conceded in a 16 January 2008 e-mail to
Brent Rooney that the Alan Guttmacher Institute could not cite one published
animal study of  vacuum aspiration (aka 'suction') abortion and later risk of
premature birth; 'suction' abortion is the most common abortion procedure in the
U.S. and Canada.  Lawyer Michelle Obama, according to a 22 May 2008 report
by LifeNews (http://www.lifenews.com/nat3935.html), considers even a late-term
abortion (i.e., Dilation and Extraction (D & X) procedure to be "legitimate" in
a 2004 letter that Michelle Obama wrote. 
 
Michelle Obama describes  D & X as "legitimate" medicine.  Unless LAWYER
Michelle Obama can cite published animal studies of D & X (aka partial-birth
abortion (PBA) and later risk of preterm birth, Mrs. Obama is supporting Nazi
style medicine.  Brent Rooney (your author) has read over seventy studies of
surgical abortion and later risk of preterm birth, all human studies.  If there were
published animal studies of surgical abortion and preterm birth risk, at least
a few of these human studies should refer to one or more of the animal studies.
However, none of these human studies refer to any animal studies.  A human
baby delivered prematurely (under 37 weeks' gestation) has higher risks of
mental retardation, cerebral palsy, autism, epilepsy, blindness, deafness,
lung injury, gastrointestinal problems, etc. than a full-term newborn.
 
The third rule of the 1947 Nuremberg Code insists on animal testing of a new drug
or new surgical procedure BEFORE human trials begin.  Thus, all surgical
abortions violate the Nuremberg Code.  Professor George J. Annas (ACLU
legal expert) heaped high praise on the Nuremberg Code:
 
      "The Nuremberg Code is the primary foundation of all ethical codes on
       human research and the most authoritative legal statement on human
       experimentation.  This ten-point code was articulated in a 1947 court
       opinion following the trial of Nazi physicians for "war crimes and crimes
       against humanity" committed during World War II, which included
       experiments designed to determine which poisons killed the fastest,
       how long people could live submerged in ice water or when exposed
       to high altitudes, and if surgically severed limbs could be reattached."
      [Source: Annas GJ. The Rights of Patients. New York University Press. 2004]
 
    A 1980 study reported that rats subjected to induced abortions had 14 times
the mammary cancer risk as rats who delivered pups; the induced abortion was via
surgically removing a pregnant rat's womb (an abortion procedure rarely if ever used
on pregnant women).  (Source: American Journal of Pathology 1980;100(2):497-512) ;
Abstract URL:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6773421?dopt=Abstract)
If this study had been done in 1960, not 1980, and well publicized, U.S. Supreme
Court judges might not have been fooled about abortion safety.
 
     So, Mrs. Michelle Obama, get aboard the Underground Railroad Express by
warning young women, (Black, Caucasian, Hispanic, Oriental, et al.), about the
hazards of abortion quackery.  The book Women's Health after Abortion will
motivate honest young pregnant women to get aboard the URE (Underground Railroad
Express); URL (online book copy): http://deveber.org/text/whaa-chapters.html ]
The Underground Railroad Express takes women from Quack-Land to the 'Plaza'
of the Perfect Partnership (your baby and you).

APPENDIX:

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com)

Michelle Obama Under Fire for 2004 Letter Defending Partial-Birth Abortions
Michelle Obama, the attorney wife of pro-abortion Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, is coming under fire for a letter she wrote defending partial-birth abortions. The 2004 letter, written to help Obama in his campaign for his U.S. Senate seat, opposes the ban on the abortion procedure. In February 2004, Michelle Obama penned a fundraising letter to help her husband Barack raise funds for his Illinois-based Senate seat. The letter contends the federal ban on partial-birth abortions "is clearly unconstitutional" and "a flawed law." Though the three-day-long partial-birth abortion procedure involves the partial birth of a baby during the middle trimester of pregnancy and the jamming of scissors into the back of her head to kill her, Obama's wife describes it as "legitimate" medicine. "The fact remains, with no provision to protect the heath of the mother, this ban on a legitimate medical procedure is clearly unconstitutional and must be overturned," Michelle Obama writes in the letter. She also said the Bush administration should not encourage the abortion practitioners who sued to reverse the ban to drop their lawsuit to make it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court later sided with Bush and Congress in saying the ban is legitimate. In closing, Obama told prospective donors that they could "count on" Barack to "keep the Bush team from appointing the Supreme Court justice that will vote against Roe v. Wade." Full story at LifeNews.com.  http://www.lifenews.com:80/nat3935.html 

Brent Rooney is a Canadian Researcher and statistician and can be reached via e-mail at: [email protected] 

Related RFFM.org articles by Mr. Rooney:

Thousands of Black U.S. Women 'Guinea Pigs' for Experimental Surgery--'Surgical Thalidomide'   http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/02/thousands-of-bl.html 

Obama's Ignorance on Abortion Related Health Risks May Impact His Own Daughters by Brent Rooney http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/04/obamas-ignoranc.html 

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

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed. 

RFFM.org's Rev. Lainie Dowell - Guest on Nationally Syndicated Radio Show

RFFM.org's contributing columnist Rev. Lainie Dowell who writes "On Faith" will be a guest on the Laurie Roth Show Thursday evening, May 22nd, from 10 - 11 P.M. Eastern Standard Time (9 - 10 P.M. CST; 7 - 8 P.M. PST).  Broadcast out of Washington state, Laurie Roth's radio talk show is nationally syndicated and "is on a mission to examine the issues based on right and wrong, not party politics." 

 

The show can be streamed at: http://www.usaradio.com/listen_live_usa2.php or go to the web site to see if the program is available in your local area:  http://www.therothshow.com/listen07.htm. 

 

Listeners can call in to the show by dialing 1-877-999-Roth (7684).

 

Rev. Dowell, 67, was born and educated in Baltimore, Maryland.  Dowell has been a Civil Rights Advocate & Community Activist for over 40 years.  She is a former NAACP Secretary and Activist and has been a Ministerial Advocate for Christian Clergywomen for over 20 years.

 

Dowell's RFFM.org columns address the world of faith in America--from her personal relationship with God to the role religion plays in the everyday lives of United States citizens.

 

Photo:  Rev. Lainie Dowell

Chicago Mayor's Push for Casino Will Harken Back to Daley Sr.'s Mobbed-Up Past

COMMENTARY by DANIEL T. ZANOZA

The city of Chicago is one of the few major metropolitan areas which runs away from its past at every opportunity.  Yet, indeed, the very construction of the city led to the term "underworld."  And with rampant corruption controlled by infamous individuals like "Big Jim" Colosimo, Al Capone, Paul "The Waiter" Ricca, Murray "The Camel" Humphrey and Tony "Joe Batters" Accardo, Chicago can hardly bury its past--no pun intended.

 

Since the turn of the 20th century, what Carl Sandburg referred to as the "City of Big Shoulders" was perhaps the center of organized crime in the United States.  Though New York had its Syndicate and Detroit had the Purple Gang, many believe true power in America's underworld was concentrated in something called the Outfit.

 

After Capone left power, due to his conviction on tax evasion charges in the early 1930's, it was Ricca, Humphrey and Accardo who truly called the shots in what many refer to as the Mafia.  Even "Lucky" Luciano and Meyer Lansky, originators of organized crime in New York would not make a move without consulting the Chicago Triumvirate whose innovation and power criminologists say was matched by none.

 

Since the hay-days of mob activity in Chicago, the city has done everything possible to shed its dark past.  But its reputation lives on--despite the efforts of the current Mayor, Richard M. Daley.  In the early century, individuals like "Big Jim" Colismo controlled gambling and prostitution in the city.  With the advent of Prohibition, organized crime found its true calling through the sale of bootleg alcohol, combined with the pandering trade.  Added profits were topped off by a very lucrative illegal gambling racket.

 

After Capone's departure, the mob moved into the numbers game--which had made millions for underworld entrepreneurs in the African-American community.  Union corruption--which was master-minded by Murray "The Camel" Humphrey--brought great fortune to the Outfit as well.  Eventually, the mob moved into the illicit drug trade.  Until the early 1960's, the Chicago Outfit was ruled with an iron hand by Ricca, Humphrey and Accardo.  Though in later years, flamboyant underworld figures, such as Sam "Mooney" Giancano and lesser players, including Joseph "Joey Doves" Aiuppa, and the Spilotro Brothers of the movie "Casino" fame, controlled organized crime in Chicago, the FBI virtually wiped out mob activity in the city--although remnants of the Outfit still exist today.

 

Chop shops and vending machines (poker, cigarettes, etc.) are still reported to be controlled by criminal entities.  But the glory days of the Chicago Outfit are said to be long gone.  Yet the public doesn't have to look far to find reminders of those wild times gone by.

 

Indeed, Chicago's current Mayor Richard M. Daley may not hold that office if not for the influence the Outfit had when it came to the election of his father, Richard J. Daley.  Perhaps the Daley link with organized crime is one of the reasons why the city does all it can to obscure Chicago's dark and corrupt history.  You will not find city-sponsored tours of famous gangland hang-outs.  Even historical landmarks, like the site of the St. Valentine's Day massacre at 2122 North Clark Street, though an empty lot, are nagging reminders of a bygone era which City Fathers would rather forget.

 

That is why the current Mayor Daley probably did much soul-searching before he decided to make a bid for a casino that would be built on Navy Pier along the city's beautiful lakefront.  At first, Daley was against the construction of a gambling palace in the heart of the city.  Was it possible Daley felt such an establishment would be a reminder of those violent days when Chicago was a wide-open city?

 

Something changed in the early 1990's, as far as Daley's thinking regarding the expansion of legalized gambling.  Some say, when the city of Joliet, Illinois received a license for a riverboat casino, Daley saw the potential such added revenue would bring to his cash-strapped coffers.  Evidently, he felt reminders of organized crime's influence--which many believed played a significant role in the election of his Father--would be worth the price.  But Daley's push for a casino will certainly rekindle memories of how the Daley Empire got started.

 

The Outfit played a significant role in Richard J. Daley's coming to power.  Hizzoner "The Boss" was the protégé of 11th Ward Committeeman, Hugh "Babe" Connelly whose ties to the mob go way back to the days of the "Moustache Pete's" who included prominent underworld figures like Johnny Torrio who first brought Capone to Chicago.  Daley took over Connelly's 11th Ward seat in 1947.  In league with people like 11th Ward Alderman "Big Joe" McDonough, by 1955 the Mob was grooming Daley to be Mayor and, with the help of the Outfit, his election became a reality.  For example, in the very mobbed-up 1st Ward, Daley won a plurality of votes by a staggering margin of 13,275 to 1,961.  After his election, Daley moved to solidify the Outfit's power in the city.  In 1956, Daley disbanded "Scotland Yard" an intelligence unit which had compiled reams of detailed records about Chicago crime figures.  All this was to the grief of the Chicago Crime Commission who believed Daley's election had set the city back a decade--as far as the prosecution of organized crime.

 

Perhaps Richard M. Daley received much of his education from his Father whose political coffers were stuffed with mob cash, according to the FBI.  And perhaps the free rein given to organized crime by the Father implanted ideas in the mind of the son regarding possible revenue expansion through alternative sources.  It's possible today's Mayor of Chicago learned a very important lesson from Tony "Joe Batters" Accardo who secretly financed the Rivera Hotel in Las Vegas in 1955, the same year Richard J. Daley was elected Mayor.  For nearly a quarter of a century afterward, the Chicago mob skimmed literally hundreds of millions of dollars out of Las Vegas casinos--while operating with near impunity in Chicago, their home base.

 

Richie Daley had to see the unlimited amounts of cash that could be directed into city coffers through the expansion of gambling in Chicago.  And though most of what used to be underworld crime has been incorporated into white collar America, gambling becomes even more seductive, no matter what memories of Chicago's past may be dredged up in the process.

 

What exactly does Richie Daley dream about when he thinks of Chicago a decade from now?  Does he see a glamorous strip of hotels and casinos lining Michigan Avenue or State Street?  Does Daley envision the legalization of prostitution--as is the case in Nevada?  And has the son of "The Boss" made plans for the added crime which will surely accompany gambling to the city on Lake Michigan.

 

Much of what will happen regarding a possible casino in Chicago is in the hands of the Illinois General Assembly.  Conventional wisdom says if another casino license is awarded in Illinois, Daley has positioned himself to be first in line.  This is all well and good, but with the good dreams come the nightmares of organized crime and corruption.

 

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

 

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Florida: Vote Early. Vote Late. Vote Often...and maybe, just maybe, one will count.

ON THE LIGHTER SIDE

by Dan Gura

What were the odds that out of fifty states, it would be Florida which again finds itself embroiled in a presidential election controversy.  Has it really been eight years since America was introduced to the infamous hanging chad when Al Gore tried to pull off a coup worthy of Argentinean strongman Juan Peron. 

"As you know Florida is the lynchpin to the presidency. Florida--home of the wet T-shirt contest." Daily Show host Jon Stewart (2000)

CNN.com reported the Democrat's dilemma de jour as follows: "The problem began last year, when Florida and Michigan challenged Democratic Party rules and moved their primaries to earlier in the year.

That gamble, aimed to make their contests more relevant, backfired in a big way.  The Democratic National Committee ruled that both states' delegates would not be seated at the party convention.  All the Democratic candidates agreed not to campaign in Florida and Michigan before the primary.

A mail-in ballot was one option being considered to solve the quandary facing state and national officials trying to figure out what to do with the state's discounted primary election."

So, let's see, the same population which John Dean, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, George Stephanopoulos, and scores of others under the donkey's banner thought were not savvy enough to vote correctly in 2000 are now suddenly capable of re-voting by mail. 

"Last night Vice President Al Gore addressed the nation.  A lot of folks in Palm Beach, Florida missed it because they couldn't find the right channel on their remotes." Jay Leno, Tonight Show (2000)

Honest, the DNC is seriously considering spending $6 million to mail ballots to approximately four million registered Florida Democrats.  What a windfall for voter fraud.  At least in Chicago someone has to show up and pretend to be the dead guy when they steal a vote.  Dishonest Floridians will just have to hang out at the mailbox to flitch a few ballots.  Maybe Fidel Castro can send over a few thousand poll watchers to insure their delivery.

I have no doubt that every Iraqi patriot who risked death to vote, and proudly bore their purple finger, will think we've gone nuts.

And can't you just picture the confusion as OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT envelopes begin arriving in the mail.  "Honey, is that our Economic Stimulus check?"  "Nope, it looks like some kind of a survey."  "Throw it away."

If they actually go ahead with this hair-brained scheme, the election officials are facing a daunting task.  How can they make a paper ballot with exactly one (1) multiple choice question (Clinton or Obama) so simple, so foolproof, so unscrewupabble that every vote will be cast as intended?  I'm sure the last thing they want to do is to call former Secretary of State Katherine Harris back from exile to determine the intent of the clueless.

Then, there is the problem of what language(s) should the ballots be printed in.  Of course Florida's majority language should receive top billing, with an English translation below it.  And, since the ballot will be printed on paper, it will, of course, require a warning label: Warning flammable.  Do not vote near an open flame or other source of ignition.  May cause an upset stomach, if eaten.  May cause a paper cut, if handled by the edges.

"They're still counting absentee ballots in some places.  Know how slow it is to count these?  Well today seven votes just came in for Michael Dukakis." David Letterman (2000)

But a monkey wrench may about to be thrown into the gears.  The Sun-Sentinel ran a story titled, Democrats say mail-in re-vote in Florida looks unlikely.  "Florida's Democratic leaders all but pulled the plug on the idea of a mail-in mulligan election to ensure the state gets a say in the historic battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton."

"The re-vote plan submitted.to the Democratic National Committee would involve mailing ballots to the state's 4.1 million Democrats.  There would also be 50 regional voting centers where people could vote in person or drop off their mail ballots. The $10 million to $12 million cost would be underwritten by private donations, party officials said."

Whoa!  The cost is double since the earlier estimate.  They must be planning on importing Chicago election judges to count the ballots.

But I have a solution which will solve their problem at a minimal cost.

Announce as broadly as possible, by television, radio, internet, and newspapers that a spy satellite will be hovering over the Sunshine State that very night.  In its belly will be one of those state-of-the-art snooper cameras which can focus on a dime on the sidewalk and tell you whether its heads of tails.  Tell everyone the vote will take place as follows.  Everyone who wants to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton should turn off all of their lights.  The satellite will then count all of the dark houses.  Next, everyone who wants to vote for Barack Hussein Obama should turn their lights on.  The satellites will then count the illuminated houses.  Since I just saved the DNC eight or nine million dollars, I think the least they can do is pay me a 10% consultant's fee--which I'll donate to John McCain.

Now all we have to do is figure out how to keep Hillary from causing an electrical black-out one minute before the vote counting starts.

"Vote:  The instrument and symbol of a freeman's power to make a fool of himself and a wreck of his country."  Ambrose Bierce

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

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.