RFFM.ORG

Media Claims Obama Will Attract New Voters In November: You Bet He Will, But Obama Probably Won't Like Them

Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director  

 

I have paid close attention to presidential elections since 1960 when, at the age of six, I was intrigued by the electoral process and being a Democrat meant something completely different than it does today.  My first vote was cast in 1972 when our country seemed to be tearing itself apart and the concept of "law and order" became very attractive to Republicans and Democrats alike.

 

By 1992 I had been a Republican for more than ten years and I first put pen to paper for public consumption.  In the year 2000, I experienced American history when, after the election, it took a 5 - 4 vote of the U.S. Supreme Court to determine who would be the next President of the United States.

 

In each presidential election cycle, emotions ran high.  Voters stood by their favorite candidates and participated in the process which chooses the most powerful man in the World.

 

However, by far, the upcoming election scheduled for November 2008 has generated more interest than seemingly all of the past presidential campaigns combined.

 

The Democratic Party recently concluded a primary season where over 36 million individuals cast their votes for either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.  The Democrats look at this huge turnout as a sure sign of victory at the polls in just a few short months.  The dominant media has chimed in regarding the fact presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has seemed to energize voters like never before in our nation's past.

 

If one watches the mainstream press carefully, there seems to be an air of certainty surrounding an Obama victory and an eventual January 2009 inauguration.  However, what the dominant media does not see is the other side of the coin.  Without a doubt, conservatives, Libertarians, conservative Catholics, Evangelicals and fiscal conservatives are also energized--to the point of a manic frenzy when it comes to the defeat of Barack Obama.

 

While liberals are having a feel good session, talking about "Hope and Change" and "Change and Hope" the opposition is galvanized in their efforts to make sure Obama does not find his way into the Oval Office.  It's almost as though it doesn't matter who the Republicans have chosen as their candidate.  Indeed, John McCain is almost mentioned as an afterthought when it comes to a discussion of who will be voted into the nation's highest office.  In reality, McCain is probably the weakest candidate put up by either Party in memory when it comes to ideological support.  Some members of the Republican Party even questioned McCain's conservative bona fides, but as long as Obama is the opponent, nothing else matters.

 

Originally, it was thought Hillary Clinton would be the better opponent for Republicans to face because she would energize the GOP's conservative base.  It soon became obvious to political observers that Hillary Clinton's negatives were child's play compared to the angst Obama generates among Republicans and some Democrats.

 

In part, this situation now exists due to the influence of the far left on the Democratic Party.  Groups like MoveOn.org have skewed Democratic primaries far to the left beyond positions held by more moderate factions of the Party, including the Democratic Leadership Conference (DLC).  Subsequently, individuals with heavy liberal baggage, like Obama, find early traction in the Democratic political field and, as was evident this year, the left got its way and now they are saddled with a candidate whose views could be considered far out of the mainstream--even for Democrats.

 

The ferocity of criticism towards Obama on the Internet has not been matched in history.  Some will claim John Fitzgerald Kennedy faced similar opposition because of the fact he was Catholic.  However, most of the opposition in 1960 to the Kennedy campaign came from the South and from within his own Party.  The opposition to Obama in 2008 is visceral and has no geographic boundaries.

 

It would be safe to say Obama's political beliefs alone would be enough to energize a significant block of American voters who will oppose him.  Yet in a time when America is threatened by radical Islam, right or wrong, Obama's heritage will play an important factor in November.  Also, I would be remiss not to address Obama's race and whether America is truly a color blind society.  Sadly, it is not and there will be a substantial number of Americans who will vote for the first time solely because of Obama's color.  The situation with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Father Michael Pfleger only threw gasoline on the embers of racism which will be sure to play a role in whether Obama can indeed become the first African-American president.

 

There are many factors which will, most likely, lead to a landslide victory for John McCain.  Obama's politics; Obama's relationships with radical characters like Wright, Pfleger, Antoin "Tony" Rezko, William Ayres and others; and, unfortunately, questions about Obama's religious background and race will come together to create a political whirlwind like this country has never seen before.

 

Yes, Barack Obama will bring new voters to the political table come November.  However, many of these new voters will cast their lot in the determined hope his candidacy ends in defeat.

 

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.    

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

Part 2 of Series What's Wrong With Journalism? Illinois Blog Blurs Lines of Journalism: A Matter of Trust

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Editor

 

Most purists would agree the standards applied to the field of journalism have declined during recent years.  From tawdry periodicals to the proliferation of the Internet, the art of the written word has been spread thin.  At one time, there were hard and fast rules adhered to by reporters, columnists and authors which gave the practice of journalism continuity.

 

Today, as in other professional and artistic forms, rules no longer seem to matter and with this new paradigm has come a devolution of journalistic standards.

 

A case in point regarding how the lines between journalism and gossip have become blurred is demonstrated in a series of columns posted by a Midwestern blog called the Illinois Review (IR) [www.illinoisreview.typepad.com/].  Recently, the IR blog posted a well-written series on Illinois politics.  The author offered scathing criticism of Republican Party leadership and how the state GOP lacks credibility.  The second part in this series addressed questions dealing with financial contributions, citing a lack of integrity demonstrated by Party officials.  To this point, there has only been three installments of this series which the blog calls "occasional" and "ongoing".  Presumably, the meaning is ... whenever the contributor to the IR blog deems it politically necessary, another column will be posted on the site.

 

At a glance, again, the series is well-written, it sounds reasonable and may or may not be factual, depending on one's political perspective.  However, there is a glaring problem with the series.  The name ascribed to the author of record, Tyler Jones, is fictitious.  There is no Tyler Jones.  Make no mistake.  The series is presented as being written by a legitimate contributor to the blog.  Indeed, a disclaimer at the top of the Illinois Review states: "All statements made on this blog are those of the authors' only.  Any disputes must be addressed to the writers, who are solely responsible for their posts.  We welcome comments; but reserve the right to deny or remove them.  Content may not be used without permission of the authors."

 

Questions regarding the identity of not only Tyler Jones, but John Ruskin, another Illinois Review contributor, first surfaced in the comment section on another blog, Illinois Reason, [www.illinoisreason.wordpress.com/] which wrote:  Have you ever seen "articles" written by "Tyler Jones" or "John Ruskin" on Illinois Review?  Those people don't exist.  Both are actually ...

 

The identity of Tyler Jones was again questioned on the comment section of The Capitol Fax Blog Mobile Edition [http://www.thecapitolfaxblog.com/wp-mobile] when a comment was posted stating:  ... on that Illinois Review blog thingee.  Liz Gorman gets ripped too of course.  It's supposedly from one "Tyler Jones" but that's actually ...

 

RFFM.org attempted to find out whether or not the speculation was true regarding Tyler Jones and/or John Ruskin.  Via e-mail, the following comment was issued by one of Illinois Review's operating officials, Dennis LaComb: 

 

Dan:

 

Thank you for your query.

 

We don't provide information about our contributors unless they determine to do it themselves.

 

Regards,

 

Dennis + Fran

 

Dennis LaComb and Fran Eaton are self-described owners of the Illinois Review and they offered no further comments regarding the true identity of Tyler Jones, after numerous inquiries by RFFM.org.  LaComb's response flies in the face of IR's disclaimer which, essentially, once again, states, "...All statements made on this blog are those of the authors' only.  Any disputes must be addressed to the writers, who are solely responsible for their posts..."

 

Obviously, the operative question is:  How can queries be put to authors who exist as pseudonyms alone?

 

Hopefully, this article will not be construed as an attack on the Illinois Review.  But it can be interpreted as an indictment of the Illinois Review and its failure to adhere to journalistic standards.  The problems which arise when publications post material under fictitious names are myriad.  Who is responsible for the posting?  Does the target of the fictitious author have access to a redress of grievances?

 

American society is founded on certain principles.  In the area of law, we have the right to confront our accusers.  The same principle should hold true in journalism.

 

Not specifically addressing the Illinois Review situation, of which he said he was unaware, Bernie Schoenburg of the Springfield State Journal-Register, [http://www.sj-r.com/] told RFFM.org, "In general, and not about any particular case, if something is published anonymously or under a fictitious name, that means there's a lack of accountability.  If our newspaper were to publish writing from a person we do not identify or someone using a false name, that could certainly open the paper up to legitimate criticism."

 

Of course, there are situations when pseudonyms have been legitimately used by authors in the past.  However, in the case of the IR series, an appropriate criteria for such literary license was not met.

 

"Credibility is perhaps the most important thing a journalist can have," said Frank Whittaker, Station Manager/Vice-President of News, NBC 5 Chicago [http://www.nbc5.com/].  "And trust is a key component of credibility.  A reader or viewer must be able to trust that what the journalist is reporting is true.  If the identity of the journalist is not known, that becomes very difficult."

 

Mr. Whittaker was also not aware of the Illinois Review series and was commenting in general terms about the rules of journalism.

 

RFFM.org will not speculate on why the Illinois Review would use fictitious names for contributors to their blog.  The purpose of this column is not to ascertain any motives.  The criticism levied within the series may well be based in truth.  But the fact the IR editors did not present the series according to the rules of journalism invalidates the postings and may cause others to search for ulterior motives as to why the Illinois Review owners and editors felt it was necessary to take this tact and, by doing so, the Illinois Review opens itself to criticism.

 

With the 24 hour news cycle brought about by cable television, along with the plethora of web sites and blogs, journalism will probably get worse before it gets better.  The dominant media cannot be excluded from this criticism.  The truth is, with this departure from accountability will come more responsibility by those who seek out information from any source and that's probably the way it always should have been.

 

Part 1 of Series What's Wrong With Journalism? Russert Tribute Overblown, Journalists Think They're Celebrities can be read at the following link:

http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/06/part-1-of-series-whats-wrong-with-journalism-russert-tribute-overblown-journalists-think-theyre-celebrities.html -- posted June 15th.

 

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.

Does the "O" in FOX Stand For Obama? Softball interview with Obama May Mislead Public

Glick Interview on FOX Shameful

 

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director 

 

I know Barack Obama, the Democratic Party's presumptive presidential nominee, is trying to move more to the political center, but I wasn't aware the duty of journalists was to help him do so.  Obama, whose political position during the primary season was slightly to the right of Che Guevara and just a tad to the left of Fidel Castro, now sounds like a reincarnated version of Barry Goldwater.  Folks, Obama is even going around quoting Ronald Reagan.  I kid you not.

 

Obama's attempt to move to the political center has earned him the permission of the higher-ups in the Democratic establishment to appear on FOX News--who liberals believe broadcast programming straight from Satan's dominion.  But votes is votes and any port in a storm.

 

Subsequently, Obama appeared on Your World with Neil Cavuto (FOX News Channel--FNC) on Thursday afternoon, June 26th.  The program featured an interview conducted by Alexis Glick.  From the start, it was obvious Glick was enamored with Obama.  If she offered up any softer questions to the junior Senator from Illinois, he could have answered them in his sleep.  Truly, Obama has faced more hard-hitting inquiries from MSNBC's Chris Matthews (who openly states shivers run down his leg at Obama rallies) or Larry King (who never asked a tough question in his life when he is indeed conscious).

 

The interview was an insult to journalism, but it demonstrated FOX's willingness to sacrifice its journalistic values to have an audience with the rock star of modern-day politics.

 

If you want to see more shameless pandering, tune into The O'Reilly Factor (FNC) almost every night.  The host, Bill O'Reilly, is so desperate to have Obama on his show, there are rumors O'Reilly will permit Obama to write his own questions and submit them to O'Reilly after a review by the Democratic National Committee.

 

But Glick's interview went overboard.  Sometimes Glick's image disappeared from the screen, but, thankfully, she was only shining Obama's shoes.  I'm pleased because this is a family-oriented column.  To end the "hard-hitting" interview Glick really pulled out all the stops when she challenged Obama to a basketball game.  I take offense at Glick's suggestion.  Was her next proposal that they both attend a barbecue?  But I digress.  Sounds like a bit of racism to me.

 

However, Glick went on to push the home town basketball theme angle and asked Obama about who the Bulls would pick in tonight's NBA draft, as though viewers of Neil Cavuto's show would know the difference between a basketball and a stock portfolio.  I take that back, they would know what a stock portfolio is.

 

Referring to the possible pickup game with Glick, Obama said, "let me see your hands."  Obama was checking if his blushing interviewer really did play basketball.  With a silly giggle, Glick said, "oh, my nails look terrible," not getting where Obama was going with the question.  "You'll have to get those clipped," said Obama to the nearly swooning Glick, as the interview came to a conclusion.

 

I'm not making this stuff up.  But there is a serious side to what happened during the aforementioned interview.  No, I'm not going to call it an interview, I'm going to call it a love-fest that could have got an R-rating, if it went much further on Glick's part.  A network that is rightly or wrongly accused of being a bastion of conservatism is actually helping a far left wing Democrat rehabilitate himself with a considerable portion of the American public.  A network that claims to be "fair and balanced" shouldn't be catering to any political candidate to boost their ratings.  The only thing that will happen is FOX will lose its viewing audience and, after what I saw today, they should.

 

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.

Israeli Prime Minister's Speech: Churchillian-like Message for Us All

From RFFM.org's Archives--U.S.A. Exclusive 

 

 

The following speech was given by Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert on Monday, July 31, 2006.  Olmert--in Winston Churchill-like fashion--defined the dangers facing free men today.  Olmert's oratory may go down as one of the most profound in world history.
 
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert 

 

In his own words:
 

 

Ladies and gentlemen, leaders of the world, I, the Prime Minister of Israel, am speaking to you from Jerusalem in the face of the terrible pictures from Kfar Kana.  Any human heart, wherever it is, must sicken and recoil at the sight of such pictures.  There are no words of comfort that can mitigate the enormity of this tragedy.  Still, I am looking you straight in the eye and telling you that the State of Israel will continue its military campaign in Lebanon.

 

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) will continue to attack targets from which missiles and Katyusha rockets are fired at hospitals, old age homes and kindergartens in Israel.  I have instructed the security forces and the IDF to continue to hunt for the Katyusha stockpiles and launch sites from which these savages are bombarding the State of Israel.  We will not hesitate, we will not apologize and we will not back off.  If they continue to launch missiles into Israel from Kfar Kana, we will continue to bomb Kfar Kana.  Today, tomorrow and the day after tomorrow.  Here, there and everywhere.

 

The children of Kfar Kana could now be sleeping peacefully in their homes, unmolested, had the agents of the devil not taken over their land and turned the lives of our children into hell.  Ladies and gentlemen, it's time you understood: the Jewish state will no longer be trampled upon.  We will no longer allow anyone to exploit population centers in order to bomb our citizens.  No one will be able to hide anymore behind women and children in order to kill our women and children.  This anarchy is over.  You can condemn us, you can boycott us, you can stop visiting us and, if necessary, we will stop visiting you.

 

Today I am serving as the voice of six million bombarded Israeli citizens who serve as the voice of six million murdered Jews who were melted down to dust and ashes by savages in Europe.  In both cases, those responsible for these evil acts were, and are, barbarians devoid of all humanity, who set themselves one simple goal: to wipe the Jewish people off the face of the earth, as Adolph Hitler said, or to wipe the State of Israel off the map, as Mahmoud Ahmedinjad proclaims. 

 

And you - just as you did not take those words seriously then, you are ignoring them again now. And that, ladies and gentlemen, leaders of the world, will not happen again.  Never again will we wait for bombs that never came to hit the gas chambers.  Never again will we wait for salvation that never arrives.  Now we have our own air force.  The Jewish people are now capable of standing up to those who seek their destruction - those people will no longer be able to hide behind women and children.  They will no longer be able to evade their responsibility.  Every place from which a Katyusha is fired into the State of Israel will be a legitimate target for us to attack.  This must be stated clearly and publicly, once and for all.  You are welcome to judge us, to ostracize us, to boycott us and to vilify us.  But to kill us?  Absolutely not.

 

Four months ago I was elected by hundreds of thousands of citizens to the office of Prime Minister of the government of Israel, on the basis of my plan for unilaterally withdrawing from 90 percent of the areas of Judea and Samaria, the birth place and cradle of the Jewish people; to end most of the occupation and to enable the Palestinian people to turn over a new leaf and to calm things down until conditions are ripe for attaining a permanent settlement between us.  The Prime Minister who preceded me, Ariel Sharon, made a full withdrawal from the Gaza Strip back to the international border, and gave the Palestinians there a chance to build a new reality for themselves.  The Prime Minister who preceded him, Ehud Barak, ended the lengthy Israeli presence in Lebanon and pulled the IDF back to the international border, leaving the land of the cedars to flourish, develop and establish its democracy and its economy.

 

What did the State of Israel get in exchange for all of this?  Did we win even one minute of quiet? Was our hand, outstretched in peace, met with a handshake of encouragement?  Ehud Barak's peace initiative at Camp David let loose on us a wave of suicide bombers who smashed and blew to pieces over 1,000 citizens, men, women and children.  I don't remember you being so enraged then.  Maybe that happened because we did not allow TV close-ups of the dismembered body parts of the Israeli youngsters at the Dolphinarium?  Or of the shattered lives of the people butchered while celebrating the Passover Seder at the Park Hotel in Netanya?

 

What can you do - that's the way we are.  We don't wave body parts at the camera.  We grieve quietly.  We do not dance on the roofs at the sight of the bodies of our enemy's children - we express genuine sorrow and regret.  That is the monstrous behavior of our enemies.  Now they have risen up against us.  Tomorrow they will rise up against you.  You are already familiar with the murderous taste of this terror.  And you will taste more.

 

And Ariel Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza  -- what did it get us?  A barrage of Kassem missiles fired at peaceful settlements and the kidnapping of soldiers.  Then too, I don't recall you reacting with such alarm.  And for six years, the withdrawal from Lebanon has drawn the vituperation and crimes of a dangerous, extremist Iranian agent, who took over an entire country in the name of religious fanaticism, and is trying to take Israel hostage on his way to Jerusalem - and from there to Paris and London.  An enormous terrorist infrastructure has been established by Iran on our border, threatening our citizens, growing stronger before our very eyes, awaiting the moment when the land of the Ayatollahs becomes a nuclear power in order to bring us to our knees.  And make no mistake - we won't go down alone.  You, the leaders of the free and enlightened world, will go down along with us.

 

So today, here and now, I am putting an end to this parade of hypocrisy.  I don't recall such a wave of reaction in the face of the 100 citizens killed every single day in Iraq.  Sunnis kill Shiites who kill Sunnis, and all of them kill Americans - and the world remains silent.  And I am hard pressed to recall a similar reaction when the Russians destroyed entire villages and burned down large cities in order to repress the revolt in Chechnya.  And when NATO bombed Kosovo for almost three months and crushed the civilian population - then you also kept silent.

 

What is it about us, the Jews, the minority, the persecuted, that arouses this cosmic sense of justice in you? What do we have that all the others don't?  In a loud clear voice, looking you straight in the eye, I stand before you openly and I will not apologize.  I will not capitulate.  I will not whine.  This is a battle for our freedom.  For our humanity.  For the right to lead normal lives within our recognized, legitimate borders.  It is also your battle.

 

I pray and I believe that now you will understand that.  Because if you don't, you may regret it later, when it's too late.

 

The above speech was given by Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert on Monday, July 31, 2006. 

 

********

 

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.

RFFM.org Exclusive Stating High-Ranking Israeli Military Official Said Attack on Iran Coming Soon, Confirmed by Jerusalem Post

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

In two front page stories published in the Jerusalem Post [www.jpost.com] on June 24, 2008, the newspaper confirmed an RFFM.org Exclusive which quoted a high-ranking member of the Israeli military who said an attack on Iran was imminent.

One story included an interview conducted by the Jerusalem Post with John Bolton, the former American Ambassador to the United Nations.  Bolton predicted the Israeli military would target Iranian facilities which are in the process of developing that nation's first nuclear weapon.

Another Jerusalem Post front page article said Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff and America's highest ranking naval officer were both in Israel participating in high level talks.

For added details regarding future Israeli actions against Iran, including information not revealed in either Jerusalem Post front page columns see RFFM.org's Exclusive from June 23rd titled "High-Ranking Member of Israeli Military Says Attack on Iran Imminent"  http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/06/rffmorg-excusive-high-ranking-member-of-israeli-military-says-attack-on-iran-imminent.html.

Link to Jerusalem Post article, titled "Bolton: Israel to strike Iran after US elections" http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1214132667211&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull 

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. 

RFFM.org EXCLUSIVE: High-Ranking Member of Israeli Military Says Attack on Iran Imminent

Tel Aviv -- A high-ranking member of the Israeli military says an attack on Iran is imminent.  Experts predict Iran may be within six months of creating a nuclear weapon and the nation of Israel is bound and determined to prevent that from happening, according to the source.  It has been estimated the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has produced more than enough weapons-grade plutonium to create a high yield nuclear device and, due to this fact, the attack on Iran would be more devastating in nature than the Israeli bombing of a nuclear plant in Iraq in June of 1981.

 

The source also confirmed a recent trip by President George Bush to Israel was part of high-level talks between the two countries on the guidelines for the upcoming air strike.  During the visit, Bush gave his okay for the transfer of bunker-busting bombs to the Israeli Air Force.

 

The source said the attacks could take place any time between now and after the U.S. presidential election, but before the inauguration of the next president in January of 2009.  However, Israeli leaders are leaning towards launching the sorties against Iran sooner than later because of the imminent danger of Iran possessing a working nuclear bomb.

 

RFFM.org has also learned Bush's trip to Saudi Arabia was much more than an effort to increase OPEC oil production, if at all.  Bush wanted to consult with the Saudi's regarding Israeli plans to take out Iran's nuclear bomb-making capabilities and, from all reports, the Saudi's gave the green light to the Israeli mission.

 

Contrary to conventional wisdom, many states in the Middle East dread the prospect of a nuclear-capable Iran and the Islamic blackmail that might soon follow.

 

The Israeli source adds credence to predictions by John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the United Nations, posted on the Drudge Report on June 23rd, in which Bolton speculates on the aforementioned plans.

 

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.

Is a terror attack more likely to come from the Amish, Buddhists or the Nation of Islam? Putting p.c. aside, the answer is clear.

Will political correctness sabotage the effort to keep the United States secure? Who is the wolf?

From the Desk of Bill Zettler

Washington Post -- 08/11/06:

"Plot to Bomb U.S.-Bound Jets Is Foiled -- Britain Arrests 24 Suspected Conspirators."

 

ABC News -- 08/26/06:

"A U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security document obtained by ABC News detailed as many as nine plots to hijack and crash aircraft."

 

If 99.99 per cent of all Muslims in the world are peaceful and not dedicated to the destruction of the United States and its citizens that leaves 125,000 individuals or the equivalent of 10 Army divisions who are dedicated, violent, anti-American Jihadists.  Even politically correct liberals, faced with an Army of 125,000 bent on the destruction of their country and way of life would support extreme vigilance and increased scrutiny, and even war in defense of the nation.  Why is it so many do not recognize the threat?

 

Contrary to the position of the liberal political elite and their media henchmen, there is not religious discrimination behind acts of reason.  Some would like to make the war on terror as simple as "Christians and Jews against Muslims."  But the world is a complex place.  Some are driven by motivations which go beyond the understanding of civilized man.  For example, Amish and Zen Buddhists are considered religious fundamentalists.  But according to political correctness troops, these groups should be considered the same threat to our safety as young foreign male Muslim fundamentalists.  If you have an Amish, a Buddhist and a young foreign male Muslim all boarding a plane, flip a coin to see whom you search.  That makes absolutely no sense.  This would be a futile and wasteful activity, all for the sake of p.c.

 

Has anyone heard of an Amish person threatening to destroy the United States?  I have yet to see a CNN report on Amish terrorists.

 

How about a Zen Buddhist claiming that all American citizens, men, women and children alike, are legitimate targets for terrorism?  Nope, nothing there either.

 

The brutal fact--and I mean brutal--is, in recent years, young male Muslim fundamentalists have killed the citizens of more than 30 countries including Americans (and others) in New York, Germans in Tunisia, Frenchmen in Pakistan, Brits in London, Kenyans and Tanzanians in American embassies, American sailors in Yemen, American soldiers in Saudi Arabia, American missionaries in the Philippines, American reporters in Pakistan, Hindu pilgrims in India, Russian school children in Beslan, Spanish train riders in Madrid, Dutch playwrights in Holland, Australians and Indonesians in Bali, a Jordanian wedding party in Amman and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghani’s.

 

Do you see a pattern here?  Do you see any Amish or Zen Buddhist killers in this group?  No, just Muslims.

 

To those, like Ahmed Rehab, Director of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), who say if we concentrate on young Muslim males, terrorists will just recruit 60-year-old white men.  I say, if that happens, then we should search 60-year-old white men--every time.  But, until then, we should search young Islamic males from certain countries including England, Trinidad and Guyana, among others--every time.  The odds are good the universe of white 60-year-old men who would become terrorists is infinitely smaller than say the universe of 18-35 year old males from Saudi Arabia.  And personally knowing a lot of 60-year-old white men, I am confident that recruiting them would, most likely, result in fewer terrorists--not more.

 

To be honest, I do not understand why non-terrorist Muslims would object to that approach.  Their wives and families are more at risk than mine.  After all, Muslim terrorists have killed more Muslims than any other group or religion.  Personally, I am not offended with having anyone searched--including myself--as long as that search is lawful.  If this modus operandi offends anyone, please remember no one is under no obligation to come to the U.S. or to live here either.  Perhaps France would be a better destination for those who have a problem with these safeguards meant to protect American society.

 

For whatever reason--and the reason does not really matter--young male Muslim fundamentalists are the primary threat to the U.S. and they are the ones who should be the primary focus of our anti-terrorist efforts.  If we do not identify the true dangers, then political correctness will kill a lot of Americans before this war on terror is over.  And any politician who does not realize these facts is not going to be a politician for long.

 

Think of it along the lines of the Biblical parable of the 100 sheep, except with a twist.  If there is one wolf in sheep’s clothing in your flock, then be a good Shepard and shear all 100--until you find the wolf.  After all, the other 99 can grow their fleece back--but not if they are dead.

Copyright 2007 Bill Zettler / RFFM.org

Bill Zettler is a contributing columnist to RFFM.org and a conservative political activist.

The above column originally ran on July 5, 2007.

 

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.

Property Rights Expert Predicts Dire Future For American Agriculture: Global Intrigue + More Will Escalate Food Prices Drastically

 

What will a loaf of bread cost next year?

 

Guest Commentary by Joyce Morrison

Joyce Morrison is a pro-family activist whose field of expertise includes private property rights.  Morrison attempts to educate the public regarding the dangers coming to their local communities through Sustainable Development and Agenda 21 programs which are designed to gradually take control of all private property through undue regulations.  Morrison is also a farmer.

The mere thought of a food shortage in America is unthinkable…or is it? 

 

Headlines read, “Planting season weather perplexing for farmers.” “Weather may cut yields,” “Further spike in food costs feared due to floods,”  “Food shortages,” -- these are headlines preparing us for the fact we will no longer have the cheapest, safest food in the world.

 

All spring the breadbasket of America has been deluged with floods, wind storms, tornados, heavy rain and hail.  Illinois has even felt tremors from earthquakes.  Farmers have struggled for their fields to be dry enough to get a crop planted only to have the seeds pounded in the ground by more rain.  Beans break their necks trying to get through the crust left by the hard rains -- and they have to be replanted.  Water has stood on the small seedlings that have sprouted, while acres sit idly by, too wet to plant.

 

Major flooding has hit the whole area including Arkansas, Kansas, Illinois, Iowa, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Wisconsin, South Dakota and Minnesota…on top of devastating tornadoes.  Upland fields have been flooded by 5 to 10 inches of rain in one storm.

 

In Central Illinois there have been reports of enough standing water in the fields that when the wind is blowing, there are big waves.  Water standing on crops for more than a couple of days will drown the plants.

 

We have had cold weather when it should have been warm.  We have had warm weather when it should have been cold.  People are skiing on fresh snow in Colorado…in June. 

 

Major cities in Iowa have flooded and, as the waters recede, the Mississippi River is flooding communities and fields down river as it travels to the Gulf of Mexico.  Thousands of acres of rich farmland are now under water.

 

Some of the richest farm ground in the nation will not produce a crop this year because the flood waters will not recede in time to allow the ground to dry to plant.  Farmers in other parts of the country are suffering from drought.  Fires have become common in California and Florida.

 

Corn did not get planted in a timely manner this spring.  The growing crop will not produce as well because the July heat will injure the pollen that is necessary to fill the ears with grains of corn.  It is too late to replant corn and very chancy on beans, if the weather turns hot and dry.

 

What is going on?  People who have survived many disasters in their lifetime are shaking their heads in disbelief.  This time it is different.  Man-made global warming is not causing this.  31,000 scientists dispute man has caused global warming--in spite of what Al Gore says.  Some scoffers have actually been reading their Bibles and found that Revelations 6:6 talks about a day’s wage for a loaf of bread.
 
If we have the technology to go to the moon, or survive in outer space, do we also have the technology to control the weather?

 

"Technology will make available, to the leaders of major nations, techniques for conducting secret warfare, of which only a bare minimum of the security forces need be appraised... [T]echniques of weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods of drought or storm." -- writes former National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, in his book "Between Two Ages.”

 

Weather modification is the general term that refers to any human attempt to alter the weather.  On March 3, 2005, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas introduced the Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act of 2005 (S.517), 1st Session, 109th Congress, on the floor of the U.S. Senate.  The bill would establish the Weather Modification Operations and Research Board to overlook weather modification research.

 

As levees are over-topped by unprecedented flooding -- only comparable to 1993 -- it is cause to wonder, “Is there a reason to clear the Mississippi River Corridor?  Does the National Park Service (NPS) have plans that does not include human habitat along the Mississippi River Corridor?"

 

What about certain legislation such as HR 1796?  “To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Route of the Mississippi River from its headwaters in the state of Minnesota to the Gulf of Mexico for the study for potential addition to the National Trails System as a National Scenic Trail, National Historic Trail.” 

 

Are we being paranoid knowing the power of eminent domain that goes with the NPS and the Trails system?  Are we putting the wrong dots together -- or is the real picture unfolding?

 

Henry Kissinger was reported to have said, “Control the food and you control the people.”  Controlling people is as simple as controlling food and water, through a variety of controls, including control of the land.

 

Related article:  "In Her Own Words" -- Joyce Morrison -- 4th in an RFFM.org series: http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2007/04/joyce-morrison-.html 

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.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research: From a Personal Perspective of a Blind Individual

by Daniel T. Zanoza

At a very young age, I was diagnosed with a congenital eye disease.  I was suffering from something called retinoschisis and in the late 1950's surgeons did all they could to provide me with limited vision in one eye.  I was technically considered legally blind, but I did have quality of life.  Running and jumping, playing baseball and riding a bike are all activities enjoyed by children.  Fortunately, with the breakthrough surgeries that were performed on my eye in the late 1950's, I also was able to enjoy these pleasant activities of youth.
 
This is not to say life was easy.  I needed special equipment to read a book and I was limited in other things I could do.  However, one of the hardest aspects of my condition involved the need to simply fit in.  Children can be cruel.  For that matter, so can adults, but those who are physically challenged can use such negative experiences to gain personal strength of character.
 
In early 2005, I noticed my eyesight was beginning to get worse.  It was barely perceivable, yet it was obvious something was happening.  After many surgeries, I ultimately lost all my vision.  It is not important to go into the details of what led to my blindness, but I would like to think it has made me a stronger person.
 
I relate this story now because today the President is expected to veto a bill that would expand research into the use of embryonic stem cells.  President Bush has promised to veto the legislation and I believe he should.
 
I say this even though some have told me embryonic stem cell research could one day restore my eyesight.  I reject this idea for a number of reasons.  However, perhaps the most important rationale for my disapproval of such research stems from my respect for human life.  I will not sacrifice or have someone else sacrifice another human life for my benefit.  I believe no one has the right to give moral sanction to such research either.
 
Proponents of embryonic stem cell research frequently focus on individuals who would benefit from the results of these studies or have family members who might benefit from the research, some with spinal cord injuries, others with Parkinson's disease or Alzheimer's.  I believe there are alternatives to the use of embryonic stem cells in research that have not yet been fully explored or utilized.
 
"Both adult stem cells and umbilical cord stem cells have demonstrated promising research results," said William Beckman, Executive Director, Illinois Right to Life Committee.  "These lab results have led to experimental treatments on human patients for over 70 human ailments.  Many of these experimental treatments have provided amazing results for the patients who received these treatments.  For example, successes have been achieved in treating a wide variety of heart conditions, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injuries, incontinence, lupus, liver damage and many more human ailments.  Most recently, in early July 2006, Colin McGuckin, professor of regenerative medicine at the University of Newcastle in Ireland, reported a major breakthrough by producing insulin needed for diabetic patients from stem cells obtained from umbilical cord blood."
 
Beyond  such alternatives to embryonic stem cell research addressed by Beckman, there is obviously a political agenda at work here.  Legislators who have, in the past, voted to defend the sanctity of life have suddenly switched rails and decided to venture down a dark and dangerous path.  Because of their political decision concerning this matter, the vision of Frankenstein-like experimentation in the future may soon become a reality, if not for the promise of President Bush's veto.  But the politics of this issue are indeed interesting.
 
"The U.S. Senate debated, voted and passed three bills on July 18, 2006," continued Beckman.  "H.R. 810 would allow federal funds to be used for embryonic stem cell research that involves killing 'excess' embryos donated by in vitro fertilization clinics.  S. 3504 would ban fetus farming, and S. 2754 would fund research to find ethical sources for obtaining stem cells with the properties of embryonic stem cells without the need to kill embryos."  Beckman concluded, "Curiously, under the agreement that Senators adopted to bring up these bills for a debate and vote, the three proposals each needed 60 votes to pass.  This rule is highly unusual.  It effectively establishes the 60 vote margin normally needed to end debate as the margin to pass these bills.  Why was the standard majority of 51 votes not used for passage of these bills?  Certainly, some behind the scene political considerations forced the use of this unprecedented special requirement."
 
Perhaps the saddest aspect regarding the debate over the use of embryonic stem cells concerns those who believe there is a magic cure for the diseases they suffer.  A leading surgeon and researcher told me the use of stem cell therapy is at least ten years down the road.  I feel, for political and economic reasons, many have been deceived into believing science is far ahead of where it is today regarding stem cell research. However, that really isn't the point.  Embryonic stem cell research is morally wrong.
 
In writing this column, I am not looking for sympathy concerning the affliction that has visited me.  I simply think there are moral imperatives that being overlooked regarding the issue.  My heart goes out to those who are currently inflicted by diseases that will ultimately lead to their deaths.  However, the killing of life should never be justified by the needs of another and President Bush's veto of embryonic stem cell legislation is not only justified, it represents a moral boundary which cannot be crossed.

EDITOR'S NOTE:  The above column was originally published July 20, 2006 and written before President Bush vetoed the legislation on embryonic stem cell research.

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.

Counselors report earlier signs of depression in women who have had abortions / More research urged

Commentary by Daniel Zanoza

In 1973 the United State Supreme Court created a woman's "right" to an abortion in a ruling titled, "Roe v. Wade."  Many legal scholars believed the court's ruling was based on what is, at best, shaky legal ground.  For example, the Constitutional right to privacy is still debated by many legal scholars who say such rights are not clearly defined within the U.S. Constitution.  Also, lawyers who presented the case for legalized abortion simply lied concerning statistical data they presented to the nation's highest court.  

It was said thousands of women had died as a result of "botched back-alley abortions."  This has been proven not to be true and, in reality, the number of women who died while accessing illegal abortion providers was a miniscule percentage of the total related by pro-abortion activists.  However, during the 33 years since the Roe v. Wade landmark ruling, information that presents abortion in a much less favorable light has been kept from the American people.  Incidents on abortion-related fatalities are rarely, if ever, reported on in the mainstream press. 

Abortion's relationship to breast cancer is also an issue that has seen little attention by the media and, sadly, even less consideration from the medical community.  Even though many statistically significant studies prove the link between abortion and breast cancer is very real.

But there are even more subtle problems experienced by women who have had abortions that have completely fallen under the public's radar.  It has been proven many women who abort their babies ultimately suffer depression.  However, this onset of depression, in the past, usually manifested itself seven to fifteen years after the abortion procedure.  Counselors who work with women who have had abortions are now reporting this depression is occurring much earlier.

 

"We are being contacted by women one day, one week, one month, etc. after their abortion experience," said Elizabeth Verchio, Executive Director, Victims of Choice (www.victimsofchoice.org).  "Traditionally, it is 7 to 15 years after an abortion before a woman will call a ministry like Victims Of Choice.  All abortion recovery programs are designed for an older, more mature woman who had an abortion 7 to 15 years ago, therefore, having lived for many years in denial with negative thoughts and with destructive lifestyles to varying degrees, etc." Verchio added.  "Now, we are talking to women who have not experienced the numbing effects of denial, but are in severe pain.  One woman said her pain was so raw everything I said to her hurt.  These women are fully aware of their loss and responsibility in causing the loss."

 

As a layman, I have a theory why this early onset of depression phenomena may be impacting women sooner in their lives.  There have been many breakthroughs in prenatal care, including the introduction of medical tools like ultrasound.  The public has now become fully aware the babies inside the wombs of women are human beings.  They smile, they frown, they kick and, sadly, they experience pain.  Women who have abortions in the 21st century are fully cognizant of these realities, no matter what their education level.

 

Verchio sees this scenario as a possibility.  But she is calling for more research into these new developments to explore avenues on how to best counsel these troubled women.

 

Abortion does leave scars.  Unfortunately, America has been in virtual hibernation concerning these matters.  Sadly, the victims of this national denial are women themselves and, to not be forgotten, the babies they aborted.

 

Victims of Choice web site:  www.victimsofchoice.org 

Elizabeth Verchio can be contacted via e-mail at:  [email protected] 

 

Photo:  Elizabeth Verchio

 

Editor's note:  This column was first published June 26, 2006 

 

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.