RFFM.ORG

Rauschenberger Close To Making Announcement On Illinois Senate Bid

RFFM.org Special

 

RFFM.org has learned former state Sen. Steve Rauschenberger is considering another run for the state Senate for the seat currently held by Michael Noland (D-Elgin).  When Rauschenberger launched an unsuccessful bid for Lt. Governor and vacated the seat, Noland won the general election in 2006 in a close election when he defeated Streamwood Mayor Billie Roth.

 

Rauschenberger would most likely receive the nod from Republican voters in the 22nd state Senate District GOP primary if he decides to throw his hat in the ring. 

 

Many believe if Rauschenberger wins the GOP primary, his high name recognition and past record as a fiscal and social conservative would help him win in the 2010 general election, when many experts predict incumbent Democrats may succumb to a Republican landslide.

 

Rauschenberger is currently President of the United Republican Fund www.unitedrepublican.com.  An official announcement regarding his intentions are expected soon.

 

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.

Obama With The Sound Off: The Face Of An Angry Man?

Guest Commentary by Nancy Cahalan

 

On the radio station I listen to each morning, 97.1 Talk in St. Louis, a regular contributor to the "Allman in the Morning show", Dr. Randy Tobler (who also has his own time slot on Saturday mornings) suggested several times that people watch President Obama's speeches with the sound off and just watch his body language and facial expressions.  It is Tobler's assertion that Obama without sound appears to be a very angry man.

After reading Dan Zanoza’s interview with Debbie Revor [http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2009/09/obama-acorn-i-worked-with-the-community-organizer-by-debbie-revor-.html]--who at one time was a legal secretary working in the same law office of Mr. Obama--I commented to Zanoza about Dr. Tobler's assertion.  Zanoza wrote back, wondering if anyone had ever written about the topic and invited me to do so.  Since this was just before the weekend of the "Big 5", Obama’s five appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows, I agreed, knowing I would have plenty of sound off/watching time.

I recorded three of the shows and the following day, I viewed them.  I must admit that the three shows did not tell me much at first.  The only time I saw anger, I decided to review this particular segment with the sound on.  I listened to what was asked of Obama by George Stephanopoulos that had elicited the angry response.  The question had to do with the definition of tax.  It was obvious that Mr. Obama was not pleased with the implication that any part of "his" health care plan is a tax, even though it fits the dictionary definition of such.

I then decided that I would access You Tube and look at other Obama speeches over the last couple of years.  I viewed speeches from 2008 and 2009 which included a part of Obama's weekly address from 9.5.09, his labor day speech to union members, his eulogy for Ted Kennedy, a speech about patriotism on 7.4.09, something from an AME church on 6.5.08 and the short four-minute sound byte from his health care speech in front of Congress which can be found on the White House website.

 

But I also thought, in order to be completely fair, I should look at other presidents in similar speeches.  So, through the wonderful portal of You Tube, I found George W. Bush speaking at the funeral of Gerald Ford and Bush's post 9/11 speech; Bill Clinton when he spoke at Richard Nixon's funeral and Clinton's farewell speech; Ronald Reagan’s farewell speech; George H. W. Bush’s inaugural address and a speech he gave on 12.20.89.  Finally, I watched Jimmy Carter speaking about the Iran Embassy hostage situation.

It was when I was watching Mr. Reagan that it finally dawned on me what was clearly apparent concerning Obama’s facial expressions and body language.  Obama seems to only have two facial expressions...pre-scowl and scowl.  Basically, his face never changes expression.  I went back to the speech in front of the union members thinking, "Gee, he is really pro-union, surely there will be a friendlier look on his face there."  But I was wrong.  Even during that speech there was not much change in his expression.  During the snippets of Obama's recent address to a joint session of Congress, his face looked like a parent who was greatly displeased at having to tell a child, yet again, something that has been told to said child many times before and why in the world do I have to tell you this again? 

 

I have always found Obama's body language to be stiff and somewhat choreographed, but watching his speeches without sound really brought attention to the stridency behind his hand movements.  He points, sometimes with his whole hand, in a very strong, jerky motion that reminds me, once again, of an upset parent scolding a child.  I also found that the angry looks are particularly noticeable when Obama is using the teleprompter and therefore never looks down at notes.  When he uses the teleprompter and is looking straight into the cameras or the crowd to whom he is speaking, the never-changing expression seems particularly stern and angry.

What I saw on the other President's faces were true expressions of emotion:  Carter's obvious sadness over the events in Iran and Bush 41's positive emotion as he has just been sworn in as President.  I also saw faces that were mobile, eyebrows raised at appropriate times, smiles occurred appropriately as well--smiles that made it all the way to the speaker’s eyes.  Hand movements were fluid or hands were folded calmly in front of the speaker.  None of the other Presidents seemed to have a chip on their shoulder like Obama seems to have. 

 

Now, again, to be completely fair, I have seen still pictures of Obama smiling, including his eyes and those pictures are pleasant.  But when I was watching his speeches with the sound off, I found that I agreed with Dr. Tobler, Obama looks very angry.  He looks like someone who expects to just have everyone agree with him and is greatly displeased to find out that so many people do not.  The health care speech seemed particularly angry to me as it included the whole parent-scolding-a-child thing.  This, coupled with his strident, pointing, stiff hand movements combine to communicate to myself, and I'm sure others, a man who has a chip on his shoulder who seems to think that he just has to say something and people will believe him and he becomes quite upset at anyone who dares to even suggest that things are other than what they are (as in the tax question posed by Mr. Stephanopoulos).

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.

Dan Proft for Governor: On Abortion, Not Good, But Pro-Gambling Record Impeccable

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

 

I have been fighting against the slaughter of the innocent unborn for nearly two decades.  It is not a political issue, it is a moral issue.  But in the world of politics there are those who will say anything to get elected. 

 

Perhaps for the first time since the birth of our nation, the American public is seeing through the political mist.  The "promise them anything, but tell them whatever you think they want to hear" mantra isn't working any more. 

 

A perfect illustration of the aforementioned politics is laid out to see in Dan Proft's campaign for Illinois Governor.  Proft, who is seeking the Republican Party's gubernatorial nomination, is a political operative, campaign consultant and media guru who has wiled his way into the heart of the conservative pro-family movement.  However, Proft's record regarding the issue of abortion and gambling should disqualify this individual from receiving support from those who have worked tirelessly to save the innocent unborn and to stop the expansion of gambling in Illinois.

 

For a moment, let's look at Proft's background.  As a political consultant, Proft helped to elect Beth Coulson (R-Glenview) to the Illinois General Assembly.  In fact, Proft led the campaign of this zealous pro-abort who now is in the midst of an effort to replace the liberal Mark Kirk in the 10th Congressional District.  Now some might say this is past history.  However, earlier this year, at a meeting of the Republican Assembly of Lake County, Proft was asked an important question regarding abortion by a member of the group:  "In the future, would you again help to elect a pro-abortion candidate?"  Proft's response was stunning, but most telling.  Proft told those gathered, "yes".  What was Proft's rationale?  He said the election of a pro-abort Republican would be better than electing a pro-abort Democrat.  A person's character can be judged by those they associate with or, in Proft's case, who he worked for. 

 

This is the type of politics social conservatives have grown to disdain.  However, Proft made his bones as a political consultant by cow-towing to both factions of the Illinois Republican Party.  While on the payroll of Judy Baar Topinka, as he admitted on Tom Roeser's radio program (WLS AM 890 Chicago), Proft was making important connections in the Illinois pro-family movement.  He was skillfully playing on both sides of the political tracks and was rewarded handsomely for doing so.

 

But most telling to me is what Proft promotes as a political strategy for his business, Urquhart Media, which is titled after a ruthless fictional character.  

 

The following excerpt is from Urquhart Media's web site:  http://www.urqmedia.com/name/

 

What's In A Name?

Politics is the art of getting someone to do what you want him to do by helping him understand why it’s in his interest to do so. Sometimes that appeal is based on shared interests; sometimes, on pure altruism; sometimes, on greed; sometimes, on fear. But in every case, the successful political appeal is an appeal to self-interest as defined and understood by the organization or individual whose support you seek.

Surely, in the history of the world’s politics, there is no finer practitioner of the art of politics than Francis Urquhart, the late Prime Minister of Britain.

What’s that, you say? There never has been a Prime Minister of Britain named Urquhart -- Francis or otherwise? You’re quite right, of course. We’re referring to the fictional lead character of House of Cards, a political satire about the post-Thatcher succession struggle inside Britain’s Conservative Party...  Urquhart -- played to perfection by Ian Richardson -- schemes, dupes, cajoles, seduces, blackmails, extorts, and eventually even murders his way into No. 10 Downing Street in such an awe-inspiring display of cunning and ruthlessness that you find you can’t help but root for this most evil of men... 

 

As to whether it is inappropriate for a communications consulting firm to take as its namesake one of the most malevolent characters in the history of politics... you might think that. We couldn’t possibly comment.

 

---

 

For more, see:  "What would you think: Some Questions of Dan Proft Style Politics: Good For GOP Locally or Nationally?" Posted March 14, 2008 http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/03/what-would-you.html 

 

Proft's political philosophy is clearly stated in the above and he has been quite successful, as he implemented this strategy.  While being well paid, he has a left a path of political destruction in his wake.  Proft has led the campaigns of social conservatives, including Jack Ryan and Alan Keyes, among others.  These political efforts went up in flames under Proft's political guidance.  Some critics say this was by design. 

 

However, Proft's road to prominence is interesting in itself and should be a warning sign for pro-family conservatives.  Proft, who cut his political teeth in former Republican power-broker Lee Daniels' office, joined state Sen. Patrick O'Malley's campaign to secure the Republican gubernatorial nod in 2002.  After O'Malley was defeated in the primary, Proft joined forces with pro-gambling interests whose purpose was to bring a casino to southwest Cook County.  More recently, Proft held a position as spokesman for the town of Cicero, a long-time hub of political corruption. 

 

Here is a reasonable question:  Did Proft's efforts to bring a casino to southwest Cook County play a factor in Cicero's hiring of Proft--where he received $90,000 per year for his work?  Indeed, groups like ILCAAAP (Illinois Church Action on Alcohol and Addiction Problems) and SSCAGE (South Suburban Citizens Against Gambling Expansion) have spent the better part of a decade holding off Proft and his well-funded consorts who are still pressing to achieve their goals today to expand gambling in Illinois. 

 

In fact, according to Carol Marin of the Chicago Sun-Times, Proft did his job so well for the town of Cicero, he became a paid spokesman for a BUILDING.  See:  http://blogs.suntimes.com/marin/2009/06/in_illinois_politics_you_as_fo.html

 

Of course, we can dismiss all of the above if Proft has had an epiphany like Paul on the road to Damascus.  In the last few months, has Proft suddenly seen the light?  Or is he a Mark Kirk type politician who when he came under fire for his Cap and Trade vote, told whoever would listen what they wanted to hear.  I guess both men admire Urquhart.  Proft would certainly support Kirk's candidacy for the U.S. Senate, according to what Proft told the Republican Assembly of Lake County a few months ago. 

 

Again, from Proft's own web site, he writes: "the successful political appeal is an appeal to self-interest as defined and understood by the organization or individual whose support you seek." 

 

The sad thing about it all is the fact Proft has convinced good people to endorse him.  I know many of these individuals personally.  They are truly dedicated to the pro-family movement, but, unfortunately, they are being deceived.  Only God knows what's in a man's heart.  But Scripture also tells us "no good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit" and "a house divided against itself cannot stand."  Proft's political legacy should be a warning to all.

 

SOME POLITICAL HISTORY SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES SHOULD NOT FORGET: 

 

In 1994, the Illinois GOP held a majority in both Houses of the state's General Assembly, held a number of statewide offices and held the governorship itself.  Yet, amazingly, legislation designed to fight abortion was practically non-existent in the years following.  In one case, imprisoned former Governor George Ryan vetoed an important pro-life bill and essentially said, anyone who believed the promises he made during the campaign season was a fool.

 

RELATED ARTICLE:  Illinois Republicans Began Losing Their Moral Base Nearly A Decade Ago Which Led To The Party's Problems Today--At The National Level As Well -- posted July 15, 2008:  
http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/07/illinois-republicans-began-losing-their-moral-base-nearly-a-decade-ago-which-led-to-the-partys-problems-today--at-the-nation.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.

Illinois Family Institute's FAMILY, FAITH and FREEDOM Banquet

Mike Huckabee to speak at Illinois Family Institute fundraiser on Tuesday, October 6th. 

 

Crowne Plaza O'Hare
5440 N. River Road
Rosemont, Illinois

 

For more information on how to purchase tickets, go to:

www.illinoisfamily.org/huckabee 

Special Report: Is DCFS Compounding A Tragedy? Agency Tells Mother of Murdered Daughter She May Never See Her Grandchildren Again

Editor's note:  The following article fist appeared on the Illinois Family Institute's web site on Sept. 8, 2009.  http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=34534

 

By Daniel T. Zanoza -Illinois Family Institute 
 

It was one of those phone calls no parent wants to receive. In fact, it was the beginning of a nightmare for Jean Cohoon. Cohoon's daughter, MeLisa Cleary, 30, a mother of three, was missing. It's a story which, tragically, is repeated all too often in America today. A woman's car is found, her purse and cell phone are left behind, but she is nowhere to be found.

 

During the first three days after MeLisa's disappearance, a frantic search for the young mother took place. Family, friends, neighbors, and good people who simply wanted to help began the search for MeLisa. Flyers were printed up, the media reported on the case and search teams were organized to scour the town of Mackinaw in Tazewell County, Illinois in the desperate hunt for clues to MeLisa's disappearance.

 

But on June 10th of 2008, Jean Cohoon's nightmare became reality. Her daughter's lifeless body was found in a rural area near Hartsburg in Logan County. The central Illinois location was not 20 minutes away from her home. MeLisa had been brutally murdered and disposed of like a piece of trash.

 

Little did Jean Cohoon know that the murder of her oldest daughter was only the beginning of a horrible saga which continues until this very day. Of course, Cohoon had to first deal with the loss of a daughter. One of the most horrific things in life is when a parent has to bury one of their children. But Cohoon was denied this right of passage. MeLisa's husband, Daniel Cleary, had MeLisa's body taken to California where she was cremated, a fact which Cohoon's family was not aware of until after the fact.

 

But Cohoon soon had to face yet another reality which only served to compound the pain her family was going through. Although the murder of MeLisa is still under investigation and no arrests have been made, soon after MeLisa's body was discovered, local police named her husband, Daniel Cleary, a "person of interest" in the case.

 

Suddenly, the question surrounding who would take custody of MeLisa Cleary's children came to the forefront. With the father's status as a "person of interest" in the murder, the Dept. of Children and Family Services (DCFS) took temporary custody of the three children. Initially, DCFS awarded custody to one of MeLisa's sisters. However, after four months, DCFS removed all three siblings from their Aunt's home. DCFS then did something extremely unusual. The surviving children were separated and placed with friends of the family. Ultimately, DCFS assumed custody of all three children before assigning them to Lutheran Social Services (LSS).

 

"My youngest daughter, who was only 22, was not prepared to take on such a responsibility," said Cohoon. "She had young children of her own and it was obvious my murdered daughter's kids were emotionally scarred. They needed the kind of care and attention my daughter simply was not able to provide. Yet their placement should have been with the family and I was perfectly willing and able to take on that responsibility with joy in my heart."

 

Little did Cohoon know that DCFS was heading towards a decision that one day would separate these children from their family--possibly forever.

 

Obviously, the case of MeLisa Cleary and the eventual placement of her children is complicated. However, a decision on who these children should be with seems simple. But government bureaucracies do not always do what's simple-- or what's right. According to family therapists, when at all possible, children who experience such trauma should be returned to their families. Indeed, when possible, DCFS' guidelines state as much.

 

"In most cases, return home, a goal of reunification, is identified based on the permanency goal that is established based on procedures," said Jimmie Whitelow, a DCFS spokesman, in an interview with the Illinois Family Institute (IFI).

 

Though rules and procedures must be a guideline for DCFS, the human equation must be remembered. Since DCFS took custody away from Cohoon's daughter, Cohoon has only seen her grandchildren sporadically. In fact, the last time Cohoon saw the children of her murdered daughter was on April 9th of 2009--five months ago. Though Cohoon desperately wants to adopt her grandchildren, the Dept. of Children and Family Services has refused her request. Cohoon told IFI the state agency has led her to believe she will never see her grandchildren again.

 

"In essence, I was told to forget about my grandchildren by a caseworker," Cohoon told IFI. "Quite frankly, I was afraid DCFS had already made a determination regarding the custody of my grandchildren and there may have been the possibility that my oldest grandchild has already been adopted out to another family."

 

After a request by the Illinois Family Institute to look into whether or not a determination had been made by DCFS regarding the status of Cohoon's grandchildren, a spokesman for State Rep. Keith P. Sommer (106th District) told IFI that DCFS has yet to make a decision on the children's placement. Sommer, who represents Cohoon's District in the Illinois General Assembly, is a member of a committee looking in to Adoption Reform. Earlier this year, Cohoon contacted Sommer's office because DCFS would not answer her questions concerning the status of her grandchildren.

 

Cohoon believes her emotional state after the murder of her daughter has played a significant role which has led DCFS to balk when it comes to granting her custody of the children.

 

"I would say I had a nervous breakdown," Cohoon told IFI. "My daughter had been murdered, her killer was still on the loose and DCFS was telling me I would never see the only blood link to my daughter again."

 

Cohoon told the Illinois Family Institute, during the midst of her emotional trauma, she had left messages with DCFS which may have led to the agency believing Cohoon was emotionally unstable.

 

Most experts say the emotional instability of anyone under such stress is understandable. Cohoon said she has gone through extensive counseling since the death of her daughter, and she is willing to do whatever it takes to be given the opportunity to adopt her grandchildren.

 

"I'd be willing to go through any counseling DCFS wants me to," Cohoon told IFI. "My only concern is the best interest of my daughter's children and I believe their best interest is best served if they are with their family."

 

Cohoon has other advocates which have taken her side in this story.

 

"I feel she is totally credible," said a reporter for a local newspaper. "Anyone could understand how an individual who experienced the loss of a daughter and the possible loss of her grandchildren would feel."

 

The fact is no one can understand what Jean Cohoon and her family have gone through, except those who have experienced such tragedies in their lives. The question which begs to be answered is whether DCFS is compounding a tragedy here.

 

The Illinois Family Institute will report on this story, as developments occur.

Donations can be sent to:
MeLisa Cleary Memorial Fund
Eureka Community Bank
205 S. Main St.
Eureka, Il.  61530

 

All proceeds from this fund will solely be used for the benefit of MeLisa Cleary's children.

 

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.

It's Time For Illinois GOP To Request That Mark Kirk Bow Out Of U.S. Senate Race

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

 

It's time for the Illinois GOP to request that Mark Kirk bow out of the U.S. Senate race.  U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk's bid to obtain the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate seat to be vacated by Roland Burris in 2010 has, to put it mildly, got off to a rocky start.  The 10th District Republican has come under fire, not only from social conservatives, but from fiscal conservatives as well.  Kirk's votes on abortion, gun rights and radical environmentalism is contrary to the state and national Republican Party Platforms.  Kirk was never going to receive support from pro-family Republicans, who perceive him as an enemy of the pro-family movement.  But the negativity directed at Kirk from fiscal conservatives is most telling. 

 

Some believe Kirk's name recognition and the backing of GOP "moderates" would put him over the top in his effort to win the Republican primary.  But Kirk, to put it mildly, lost this voting bloc as well with his now well-known misguided "YES" vote on Cap and Trade. 

 

For some reason, the Illinois GOP and a number of influential Republicans voiced early support for Kirk.  Perhaps the Party was unaware of the visceral response that would come regarding Kirk's Senate bid or possibly Party leaders believed they could sweep Kirk's record under the rug.  Well, it's clear this is not the case and Kirk's candidacy is doomed to failure. 

 

I believe Mark Kirk should withdraw from the field of candidates seeking the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate.  Indeed, Kirk would be better off if he followed the lead of U.S. Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania who had enough sense to read the writing on the political wall and decided to become a Democrat earlier this year.  Specter realized, even if he won the Republican primary--which was highly doubtful--his experience as a politician told him the only way he could reelected was as a Democrat.

 

Of course, Specter's strategy violated the trust of Republicans who voted for him in the past.  Indeed, Specter gets low points for character, even though his political decision was solely meant to serve his personal political agenda.  On the other hand, Kirk should run as a Democrat simply because his votes more clearly align with the Democratic Party.  Kirk admits as much--when he tells anyone who will listen--that his voting record as a U.S. Representative from the 10th Congressional District was contingent upon the wishes of his constituency.  Now Kirk is telling Illinois Republicans his political views will change, if only voters will give him their support. 

 

In a story on September 9th, RFFM.org exclusively reported, Kirk was saying, if given the opportunity, he would change his vote on Cap and Trade.  [See:  Mark Kirk Says He Would Change Vote on Cap and Trade? Amazing!  http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2009/09/mark-kirk-says-he-would-change-vote.html] 

 

At first, I believed Kirk had changed his position on Cap and Trade simply to provide political cover to Republicans who gave their early endorsement to Kirk.  These influential members of the GOP could then say Kirk has since reconsidered his vote on Cap and Trade--which many believe would be the greatest tax increase on the American public in U.S. history.  But it is obvious Kirk's sudden change of heart and the fact he has since gone public concerning the matter has thrown gasoline on an anti-Kirk fire that is blazing out of control.

 

The truth is Kirk's candidacy is now hurting Republicans who have endorsed him.  U.S. Reps. Peter Roskam and John Shimkus have come under withering attack from all factions of the Republican Party because of their endorsement of Kirk. 

 

On September 4th, RFFM.org reported on the efforts of Roskam and Shimkus who are promoting Mark Kirk with a series of automated phone calls to their constituents.  [See:  Mark Kirk for Senate Campaign Assisted From Roskam & Shimkus Robo-Calls -- http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2009/09/mark-kirk-for-senate-campaign-assisted-.html]. 

 

Rodney Davis, a spokesman for Shimkus, told RFFM.org that Shimkus and Kirk were on the same side regarding many issues which came to a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives.  Certainly this rationale did not hold water with me and it is evident this explanation isn't passing muster with many Illinois Republicans either.  The sad thing about it all regards the damage Kirk is leaving in his wake.  Both Roskam and Shimkus have excellent voting records in Congress.  But many now believe the support of Roskam and Shimkus for Kirk represents a political betrayal.  Some call it "politics as usual"--a good ol' boy network which rallies behind a candidate solely because of Party allegiance.

 

The truth is most Republican voters are bound by factors which go far beyond the realm of party politics.  They not only look at an individual's voting record, but they look at an individual's character as well.  Mark Kirk has demonstrated he is sorely lacking in both areas. 

 

There is no way social conservatives can vote for a man who supports abortion on demand.  Kirk himself said, "I strongly support a woman’s right to choose, and also support family planning programs, so that a woman never has to make that difficult choice."  Source: www.kirkforcongress.com September 9, 2000. 

 

Kirk voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.  He voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.  Kirk voted NO on making it a crime to harm an unborn child during another crime.  He voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research.  Kirk voted NO on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion information and he voted NO on banning Family Planning funding in U.S. aid abroad.  Kirk's support for abortion is so strong, he is rated 100% by NARAL.  [For more info see:  http://www.ontheissues.org/IL/Mark_Kirk_Abortion.htm]  

 

But for a moment, let's put aside Mark Kirk's opposition to the Republican Party's state and national platforms and the pro-family agenda.  Kirk's vote on Cap and Trade and his subsequent flip-flop on the issue tells us more about the man and his politics.  Millions of Americans understood what Cap and Trade was all about.  A recent report indicates, if passed into law, the Cap and Trade bill will increase utility bills for average Americans by at least $1,700 a year.  This figure would not include the costs businesses (who would also be affected by higher energy costs) would pass along to their consumers.  Cap and Trade would have a devastating impact on all of us--rich and poor alike.  In addition, the Cap and Trade legislation would result in the loss of untold tens of thousands of jobs (not just in Illinois, but nationally as well) and possibly further devastate our depressed economy.  The Cap and Trade bill is so toxic, the Democratic-dominated U.S. Senate is reluctant to bring the legislation to the floor for a vote.

 

Are we expected to believe Mark Kirk and the seven other Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives who helped pass Cap and Trade did not know the consequences of their vote?  If this is the case, Kirk is NOT qualified to hold ANY elected office, let alone represent Illinois in the United States Senate. 

 

However, Mark Kirk's candidacy IS making history.  There are web sites and blogs, run by Republicans who are devoted to his defeat.  Republicans United Against Mark Kirk for U.S. Senate [http://no2markkirk.blogspot.com/] is one of them.  In a recent Tea Party in New Lenox, Illinois--attended by an estimated crowd of 10,000--the only individual's name, when mentioned, to receive more boos than Barack Obama was Mark Kirk.

To date, the Illinois GOP has NOT gotten the message regarding the damage Kirk is doing--not only to the Party, but to those who have endorsed him.  However, this may be par for the course from a Republican Party establishment which seems hell bent on self-destruction.  The "Republican right or wrong" mantra is no longer applicable, especially in these times when Americans are more aware of how Washington, D.C. is impacting their lives. 

 

Most assuredly, there are those in the Illinois Republican Party who would prefer social conservatives find another political home.  This was made clear when the Party threw all its weight, influence and money behind Judy Baar Topinka when she ran for Governor in 2006.  Baar Topinka garnered 39% of votes cast in the general election.  The so-called Republican "moderate" was soundly defeated by Rod Blagojevich--who was eventually impeached, removed from office and now faces criminal charges regarding corruption. 

 

The GOP establishment keeps on telling us that true conservatives can't win, even though the last Republican to win a significant statewide election in Illinois was Peter Fitzgerald in 1998 who, in every sense, was a pro-family candidate.  The truth of the matter is...Fitzgerald, using millions of dollars of his own money, won his U.S. Senate seat with little or no support from the Illinois GOP establishment.

 

Mark Kirk, if nominated by Republican primary voters, would have no chance to win the general election.  The response to Kirk's candidacy from all sides of the Republican political spectrum is that visceral.  However, there is a large field of conservatives seeking the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate.  There is a possibility Republican votes will be split among these candidates, allowing the liberal Kirk to literally sneak in the back door.  This would be a disaster for the GOP on many levels, leading to Republican voters staying home in 2010.  This would have a devastating impact on Republicans seeking other offices, including highly-prized Congressional seats currently held by Democrats which are now vulnerable because of Barack Obama's radical policies. 

 

Therefore, some questions must be posed to the leaders of the Illinois GOP:  Is your support of Mark Kirk worth the damage his candidacy will do to the entire Party?  Are you willing to put the heads of good Republican candidates on the political chopping block for the sake of Mark Kirk? 

 

It's time for Party officials to come to their senses.  Mark Kirk must go!  I repeat:  Mark Kirk must go!  Otherwise, decent men and women who abide by Republican principles will suffer the consequences of Kirk's ill-advised candidacy for the U.S. Senate. 

 

Kirk could gracefully bow out of the primary and resurrect his popularity among liberals and Democrats in the future.  In all reality, the best place for Kirk is in the Democratic Party.  Obviously, the man bowed to political expediency in his representation of the 10th Congressional District, while ignoring what his votes would mean for our state and country.  It's time for the Republican Party establishment to acquire a political backbone and, for a change, do what's right.

 

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.

Obama Used Race To Get Elected: Critics Racist? I Don't Think So

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

 

It is clear the dominant media is attempting to inject race into the discussion over President Barack Obama's political agenda.  I find it interesting the mainstream media never applies the same standards to those who oppose African-Americans on the political right.

 

For example, during U.S. Supreme Court Clarence Thomas' contentious confirmation process he was called everything from an unqualified jurist to a sexual predator.  Yet the left faced no charges regarding racist motivations concerning their verbal assaults on Thomas.  Other victims of vicious attacks from liberals include Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and current Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele.  In Rice's case, political cartoons often portrayed her as an Aunt Jemima-type character.  The depictions were clearly racist and over the top.  Steele is called an Uncle Tom by those on the left and the media give his attackers a pass as well. 

 

Many Americans celebrated the fact Obama was the first African-American president elected into office.  Though Obama himself claimed America was a post-racial society, he played to the issue of race when it served him best.  Imagine if George W. Bush was referred to as the 43rd white American president.  Of course, this would have been inappropriate.  Barack Obama is President of the United States and nothing more.

 

To say the critics of "President" Barack Obama's policies are racist would deny the results of the election.  Millions of white Americans voted for Obama.  In fact, more whites voted for Obama than John Kerry in 2004 or Al Gore in 2000.  The far left uses the race card when things aren't going their way.  Perhaps the laundry list of Obama's policies--which flirt with socialism--is the reason why the same people who voted for him now question his leadership.

 

Multi-billion dollar bail-outs of the banking industry, the government takeover of the auto industry, a government plan to take over one-sixth of the U.S. economy related to health care reform, card check, comprehensive immigration reform, homosexuals in the military and the assault on the innocent unborn are all parts of Obama's plan for America.  If Obama were white and advancing this radical political agenda, he would be facing the same resistance from those in the conservative media and Americans themselves. 

 

However, it is almost a natural progression to go from celebrating a president because of his skin color to defending him for the same reason.  It is not only flawed thinking, it is dangerous.  But Democrats don't care about race relations in the United States.  They give the cause of racial harmony lip service, but use the issue of race to divide the country when it serves them best. 

 

Barack Obama could stop this liberal strategy, if he wanted to.  He could strongly state that anyone who tries to use race to gain political advantage in America is not a patriot. 

 

I don't expect Obama to do any such thing in the future.  There are racists in America of all colors.  Yet Obama continually refers to his heritage which makes it impossible for anyone to forget he's a black president, not simply the president. 

 

It is Obama's policies which are generating the heated rhetoric surrounding his presidency.  Americans are hard-working, independent people.  We celebrate a legacy handed down to us from our nation's Founders.  Obama's "hope and change" turned out to be a direct assault on the principles which made this nation great.  That is the reason for heated Town Hall meetings, exuberant Tea Parties and why millions gathered in Washington, D.C. a short time ago.

 

The left is trying to give cover to policies the American people are rejecting in greater numbers every day by injecting race into the issue.  Sadly, they may achieve their goals and set America back twenty years or more regarding which seemed to be a fading remnant of the past.

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

Canadian Researcher Brent Rooney Cites Double Abortion Disaster: Cerebral Palsy & Breast Cancer

British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology Reveals Abortion Boosts Odds of Premature Births, Cerebral Palsy and Breast Cancer

 

Researcher Brent Rooney says, "Since the British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology is very prestigious, its abortion-preemie revelation is HUGE."

 

On Sept. 16, 2009 Dr. Prakesh Shah (U. Toronto) had his abortion-preemie 'study of studies' published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Using data from 37 prior studies, Dr. Shah reported that 1 prior induced abortion boosted relative odds of a premature birth by 35%.[4] Abstract:  http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122591273/abstract

Was it a mere fluke that the Institute of Medicine identified “Prior first trimester induced abortion” as an “Immutable Medical Risk Factor Associated with Preterm Birth” in the 2006 & 2007 editions of its mammoth book about preterm birth?[1]; URL:  http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11622&page=625 ]  On 12 January 2009 three (3) preterm birth heavyweights (Dr. Jay Iams, Dr. Robert Romero & Dr. Robert L. Goldenberg) confirmed the IoM finding in a medical journal of the highest prestige, Lancet, on page 165.[2]

Two 2009 massive studies confirm that women with prior IAs (Induced Abortions) have higher risk of premature (under 37 weeks' gestation) and handicapped newborn babies.[3,4] A woman who delivers a baby under 32 weeks' gestation also doubles her lifetime risk of breast cancer.[5,6] In February 2009 Dr. Hanes Swingle (U. South Alabama) reported that women with prior IAs raised their relative odds of a birth under 32 weeks' gestation by 64%; Dr. Swingle and colleagues used data from 4 prior studies to get that result.[3] Babies under 32 weeks' gestation have 55 times the Cerebral Palsy risk as fullterm (at least 37 weeks ) newborns.[7] Canadian Dr. Prakesh Shah, who is employed by the Mount Sinai Hospital ( Toronto ) and the University of Toronto, and colleagues, using data from 37 prior studies report that 1 prior IA boosts relative preterm birth odds by 35% but more than 1 prior IA raises preterm birth odds by 93%.[4] Dr. Shah advocates that women receive informed medical consent about the abortion-premature birth of prior induced abortions before the procedure is performed.

But are these two (2) massive 2009 studies enough to demonstrate that induced abortions pose an increased risk of preterm birth and thus CP risk? In the 'Court of Medicine' a 'defendant' new surgery (or new drug) is presumed guilty of serious adverse side-effects until by strong evidence it is demonstrated to be 'innocent'. This is the exact opposite of a court of law, where the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

 

'Suction' (vacuum aspiration) abortion was invented by doctors in communist China & 'announced' to the world in 1958 in the Chinese Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Fifty years later the British Medical Journal had that 1958 article translated into English.[8] From 1958 to 2009 there has never been a 'study of studies' (termed "meta-analysis") or SYSTEMATIC review that cleared by very strong evidence the most common induced abortion procedure, 'suction' abortion, of the risk of a later preterm birth or the low birth weight baby (under 1,500 grams which is 5 pounds 8 ounces) baby.

In 2007 Dr. Calhoun, Dr. Shadigian, & Brent Rooney (MSc) estimated that there were 1,096 newborn U.S. babies under 1,500 grams with CP in 2002 due to their mother's prior induced abortions.[9]

 

Brent Rooney (MSc), Research Director – RPRC
http://www.justiceforkids.webs.com
[email protected]

Links:

 

Breast Cancer risk: http://bcpinstitute.org/booklet4.htm

'Swingle' abstract:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19301572?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

 

References

 

1 Behrman RE, Butler AS, Alexander GR. Preterm Birth: Causes, Consequences, and Prevention. National Academies Press 2007
[ http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11622&page=625 ]

 

2 Iams JD, Romero R, Culhane JF, Goldenberg RL. Primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions to reduce the morbidity and mortality of preterm birth.  Lancet 2008;371:164-175 [ Dr. Jay Iams email: <[email protected]> ]

3 Swingle HM, Colaizy TT, Zimmerman MB, Moriss FH.  Abortion and the Risk of Subsequent Preterm Birth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Reproductive Medicine 2009;54:95-108

 

4 Shah P. et al. Induced termination of pregnancy and low birth weight and preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis BJOG 2009;116(11):1425-1442
URL: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122591273/abstract

5 Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Andersen A-MN, Westergaard T, Andersen PK. Preterm Delivery and risk of breast cancer. Brit J Cancer 1999;80(3/4):609-613

 

6 Innes KE, Byers TE. First pregnancy characteristics and subsequent breast cancer risk among young women. International J Cancer 2004;112(2):306-311

7 Himpens E, Van den Broeck C, Oostra A, Calders P, Vanhaesebrouck P. Prevalence, type, and distribution and severity of cerebral palsy in relation to gestational age: a meta-analytic review. Developmental Med Child Neurology 2008;50:334-340

 

8 Wu Yuantai, Wu Xianzhen. A report of 300 cases using vacuum aspiration for the termination of pregnancy. Chinese Journal Obstetrics Gynecology 1958:447-449 . English translation:
URL: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/data/336/7657/1332-a/DC1/1

9 Calhoun BC, Shadigian E, Rooney B. Cost Consequences of Induced Abortion as an Attributable Risk for Preterm Birth and Informed Consent. J Reprod Med 2007;52(10):929-937

 

Rooney B, Calhoun BC. Induced abortion and risk of later premature births. J American Physicians Surgeons 2003;8(2):46-49
[ URL: http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf ]

 

 

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.

Andy Martin Blasts Durbin + Burris for Support of ACORN in Senate

OP-ED by ANDY MARTIN * 

SENATORS DICK DURBIN AND ROLAND BURRIS VOTE TO CONTINUE FINANCIAL CRIMINAL ACTIVITY BY ACORN 

Barack Obama has received incalculable help from ACORN over the years. In fact Obama’s political career, from his earliest days in Chicago, was linked to ACORN. 

Obama “flirted” with socialists and radicals as a student at Occidental College, at Columbia University and after his arrival in Chicago. In 2008 the media pretended not to see Obama’s radical history and avoided asking probing questions about his radical associations. Sean Hannity was alone in exposing Obama.

This week two Illinois U. S. Senators were among the “Sinful Seven” that voted against denying federal funds to ACORN. Senators Dick Durbin and Roland Burris voted “no” on the suspension. The good People of Illinois have been shamed by the votes of their senators.

Why do Durbin and Burris grovel to ACORN? Because ACORN’S parent/affiliate, the Service Employees International Union (“SEIU”) is the largest union in Illinois. Period. And the SEIU is an increasingly radical and unprincipled union. Period, again.

The Democratic Party’s public officials are in a SEIU chokehold.

SEIU is also strangling the City of Chicago’s economic life. SEIU campaigns have been waged to elect radical socialists to the Chicago City Council. The SEIU has tried to make it all but impossible for Wal-Mart to open stores within the city limits despite the obvious public demand for low prices.

And yet, and yet despite the SEIU’S chokehold and ACORN’S criminality, time is running out for Barack Obama. He can delay the inevitable fall of ACORN, but it is doubtful he can prevent the organization from being prosecuted and eventually disbanded.

ACORN’S criminality has become too pervasive and public to sweep under any carpet, even Obama’s

ACORN and I go back along way. I tried the first bank holding company case at the Federal Reserve Board in 1973. I often petitioned on behalf of the public interest in Federal Reserve Matters. Eventually, I saw the name of a new group start to appear in filings with the Fed: ACORN.

I came to find out that ACORN was petitioning to be heard so that the organization could ultimately extort money from bank holding companies. I kept my distance from ACORN. Their “public interest” was purely an interest in “private profit,” for ACORN.

In 2008 ACORN became notorious for vote fraud in major states such as Ohio. There is no secrecy about the group’s goals: de facto socialist revolution in America, something which I predicted on Sean Hannity’s America during the 2008 campaign:  www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8zj_Fj3QpY&annotation_id=annotation_259119&feature=iv

And so nothing that Obama & Co. are now doing surprises me. I predicted it all last year. I was criticized for my predictions last year; no one is criticizing me now.

Still, the enormity of the fraud being orchestrated by ACORN, and the blatant and brazen efforts to loot federal funds for their own operations, are no secret. So why did Durbin and Burris blind themselves to ACORN’S abuses and surrender to the ACORN “bordello?”

Because Durbin and Burris are both political prostitutes.

And because Illinois has become America’s rogue’s gallery of radicalism.

The Chicago Way? A disgrace to the People of Illinois.

* Andy Martin is seeking the Republican nomination for the Illinois U.S. Senate seat that will be vacated by Roland Burris.

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.

James Pouillon Murder: Where's The Outrage From Dominant Media? by Arlene Sawicki

OPEN LETTER TO THE MEDIA

The premeditated murder of James Pouillon of Owosso, Michigan, a disabled pro-life activist, father of two and grandfather, affectionately known by locals as the peaceful "sign guy," is being mourned by the nation's pro-life community.

Pouillon was gunned down across the street from the Owosso High School while holding a photograph of a baby with the word "LIFE."

County officials have accused 33-year-old Harlan Drake of shooting Pouillon several times because he was "offended by the manner of Mr. Pouillon's message."

Leading pro-life advocates are questioning the lack of a concerned response from key abortion advocates, especially from the office of the president, which were quick to condemn the murder of late-term abortionist Dr. George Tiller and call for drastic protective measures for abortion centers.

Many in the media never missed an opportunity to use this example to condemn the entire pro-life movement as if it consisted entirely of hate-filled people.  The shooting comes at a time when pro-life groups have been receiving high numbers of death threats in the wake of the shooting of Dr. Tiller and the strong pro-life opposition to the government-run health care bills pending in Congress that open the door for massive abortion funding.

Father Frank Pavone, the head of Priests for Life, had this to say about the lack of a pro-abortion reaction:  "I call on the leaders of the so called 'pro-choice' movement to condemn this killing and to consider all of the (3,500) people who lose their lives to abortion every single day."

James Pouillon abhorred violence, in any form, especially the murder of 55 million innocent babies through legalized abortion.  The violence against him makes the total of victims 55 million and one man who chose to peacefully witness against a "culture of death."

Arlene Sawicki

South Barrington, Illinois

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.