FJM Blog

by Star Parker

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said recently, “Our K-12 agenda can be summed up in one word: reform.”

If only it were true. But what Duncan calls reform is indeed
putting lipstick on a pig. In this case, the pig is Washington’s never
changing formula for solving everything: spending ever-increasing sums
of taxpayer’s money.

“Reform” means generating new ideas about how to spend and coming up with clever new titles for programs.

So today it’s called “Race to the Top.” Duncan has been handed
$4.35 billion, taken out of last year’s $830 billion stimulus bill, and
given personal discretion for dispensing it to states that propose
education reform ideas that strike his fancy. It’s the largest
discretionary sum ever given to an education secretary.

This past week 40 states submitted proposals.

How do we know that Duncan can identify good ideas? We don’t.

He says he likes charter schools and performance pay for
teachers. He’s open to new colors of lipstick that the pig has not
sported before. But a pig is still a pig.

There
appears to be not a shred of evidence that funneling more taxpayer
dollars through Washington to states improves education. Data compiled
by the conservative Heritage Foundation analysts shows that since 1970,
federal spending per student, adjusted for inflation, has more than
doubled with no discernable change in test scores.

Now a new study released by the Department of Health and Human
Services shows that the Head Start program — the federal program
started in 1965 aimed at getting low-income, preschool children
prepared for school — has no impact.

Some $166 billion of federal funds has been poured into Head
Start. Yet this new study shows that first graders who have been
through the program perform essentially the same as those who haven’t.

In response to Texas Governor Rick Perry saying “no thanks” to
new money with stipulations from Washington bureaucrats, Duncan said,
“If states are half-hearted that’s probably not a place where we’ll
invest.”

It says it all that Duncan calls a long and unblemished history
of shoveling taxpayer funds into a black hole “investing.” Can you
imagine any investment banker or venture capitalist “investing” in
anything with this kind of track record? Chances are zero.

So why must we tolerate it?

If there was evidence that billions of dollars directed into new
spending was going to improve education, we taxpayers might be prepared
to be put on the hook. But not only is there no evidence, the real
problems that the charade pretends to address also just get worse.

It’s black and Latino kids who languish year after year in failing public schools as the game goes on.

In normal markets, customers drive the quality of the product.
In the case of the public education monopoly, the customers — kids and
their parents — are pawns in the game. Anything that would give the
customers power — such as school choice — government and union
bureaucrats fight.

The Obama administration, with all its lofty rhetoric about
reform, quietly has allowed congressional Democrats to kill the
successful Washington D.C. voucher program. The program has
demonstrably given 1,300 inner-city kids a better education in private
schools at a third of the cost their counterparts are getting in D.C.
public schools.

Even the liberal Washington Post has editorialized to save the program, as President Obama and Secretary Duncan turn deaf ears.

Duncan was chastised for recently saying the “best thing” to
happen to education in New Orleans was Katrina. But education has
markedly improved there as parents were given school choice in the wake
of the disaster.

The best thing that could happen to inner-city education
nationwide would be a political Katrina that would give birth to
parental empowerment and school choice.

Tags: Uncategorized // Add Comment »

Tags: Uncategorized // Add Comment »

For Release: February 5, 2010
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or (703) 568-4727 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org or Judy Kent at (703) 759-7476 or jkent@nationalcenter.org

Washington, DC: Members of the Project 21 black leadership network are speaking out in support of Focus on the Family and the family of former Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow for their efforts to air a pro-family commercial message during this weekend’s Super Bowl broadcast.

Project 21 members are also praising the CBS television network for not giving in to pressure to not air the ad.

Lisa Fritsch: “Tim Tebow is one famous example of the countless children born in the face of challenging circumstances.  These children deserve a voice and a right to life just like so many who have been traditionally discriminated against through poverty and racism. Their civil rights are exactly the same: to be given the chance at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I applaud CBS for recognizing the fundamental issue of the rights of the minority that, in this case, just happens to be a mother who chose life - and a life that has given so much back to others.” (Lisa Fritsch is a member of the national advisory council for the Project 21 black leadership network and a community activist, writer, public speaker and talk radio host in the Austin, Texas area.)

R. Dozier Gray: “Focus on the Family should be praised for exercising their freedom of speech in promoting family and life.  It’s important to remember that the counter to speech that one person may find disagreeable is more speech.  No one should be denied such freedom.  If pro-abortion groups disagree with the Tebow family’s message, they are free to run their own ad.  Though I will never support abortion, I will always support their right to speak up in favor of it.  I ask only that those who do also afford me and those who agree with me the same courtesy.” (Dozier Gray is a member of the national advisory council for the Project 21 black leadership network and a combat veteran.  He is the author of the recent Project 21 New Visions Commentary “Black Genocide and Black Acquiescence” on abortion that can be found at http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVGrayAbortion90110.html.)

Mychal Massie: “Feminist attempts to pressure CBS into not running Focus on the Family’s Tim Tebow ad are ludicrous.  It reveals a radical agenda that prizes abortion over all other things. Opponents argue the Super Bowl isn’t the proper forum for a family message, or that it will detract from the game.  But it’s interesting that they have no apparent concern for other ads that feature women losing their clothing or being made the butt of jokes.  This motivation to aggressively pursue the silencing of an ad contradicts the very essence of what they purport to stand for - choice. They can no longer hide behind glib, coded euphemisms designed to mask their true agenda.  The curtain has been pulled back and the eugenicist genie has been unambiguously exposed.” (Mychal Massie is chairman of Project 21, a columnist for WorldNetDaily, and a former talk show host and businessman. His 2005 New Visions Commentary “Can the Unborn Save Future Generations?” can be found at http://nationalcenter.org/P21NVMassieAbortion105.html.)

Focus on the Family bought commercial time during CBS’s Super Bowl broadcast on February 7. While the ad is not available for review, it reportedly will feature Pam Tebow, who was advised to have an abortion for health reasons in 1987.  She did not, and her son Tim grew up to play college football and won the Heisman Trophy in 2007.

Feminist groups are pressuring CBS, which has “moderated” its policy regarding advocacy ads, to pull the ad.

Project 21, established in 1992, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research (http://www.nationalcenter.org), a non-profit foundation established in 1982 and funded primarily from the gifts of over 100,000 recent individual donors.

Tags: Uncategorized // Add Comment »

For Release: February 5, 2010
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or e-mail project21@nationalcenter.org

Washington, DC: Kevin Martin of the black leadership group Project 21 and Amy Ridenour of the National Center for Public Policy Research are questioning the accuracy of an article in the left-wing online magazine Salon which implies that independent filmmaker James O’Keefe is a racist.

The article, “James O’Keefe’s Race Problem” (http://tw0.us/6JV), by Max Blumenthal, cites O’Keefe’s attendance at a “Race and Conservatism” panel in 2006 as evidence that, as Blumenthal put it, O’Keefe’s “short but storied career has been defined by a series of political stunts shot through with racial resentment.”

Black conservative Kevin Martin, one of several panelists at the event, disagrees.  In fact, Martin says, O’Keefe approached him after the event and expressed support for Martin’s positions, which are certainly not racist:

“As a panelist at the Robert Taft Club ‘Race and Conservatism’ event in 2006, I had the chance to personally meet James O’Keefe after the event ended.  He voiced personal support for me and my positions. He also repudiated the radical elements in the room that night.

“Marcus Epstein invited me - a black conservative - to a discussion on race issues, not O’Keefe.  What transpired was a spirited debate against radical elements of which I and other conservatives were clearly opposed.  At no time did I feel intimidated, nor was I ever treated poorly by my hosts. The Blumenthal story is long on accusation and short on facts.

“The left is attempting to label O’Keefe as a racist, but this probably has nothing to do with his ideas or associations now or then.  I believe it is only because he recently exposed the radicalism of ACORN and the illegal advice its workers chose to give out.  By labeling O’Keefe a racist, they likely seek to change the public view of O’Keefe’s work from one of exposing corruption and law-breaking to one of a white conservative going after a group empowering the poor and minorities.”

Blumenthal’s article in Salon also says the following about Project 21: “A speaker from the right-wing black front group Project 21, founded by white conservative David Almasi to shill for corporate clients and provide cover for conservative politicians, was added at the last minute.”

In response, Amy Ridenour, CEO of the National Center for Public Policy Research, which sponsors Project 21, said:

“I can’t imagine where Max Blumenthal got his information, unless he made it up. Project 21 was founded in 1992 as a way to introduce black conservatives to the news media during policy discussions sparked by the Rodney King riots (as Project 21’s website clearly states at www.nationalcenter.org/P21History.html, not to support any politicians.  David Almasi did not found it - in fact, he worked elsewhere until five years later - and his role now is to book interviews for Project 21 members in response to media inquiries and to manage support staff in such tasks as sending op-eds and press statements by Project 21 members to the press, something he does in addition to his main professional duties as executive director of the National Center for Public Policy Research.  Project 21 is actually chaired by Mychal Massie, and its sole full-time employee is Deneen Borelli, both of whom are black.

“Max Blumenthal’s notion that Project 21 has ‘corporate clients’ is silly, as Project 21 is non-profit.  It’s expenses are met by the non-profit National Center for Public Policy Research, which has never had corporate clients and which receives less than one half of one percent of its overall revenue from corporate contributions, and from individual Project 21 members, who often undertake travel and activities at their own personal expense.  I’m told neither Max Blumenthal nor anyone from Salon contacted the Project 21 office or Kevin Martin when researching or fact-checking this story, and it shows.”

Project 21, established in 1992, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a non-profit foundation established in 1982 and funded primarily from the gifts of over 100,000 recent individual donors.

Tags: Uncategorized // Add Comment »

By Armstrong Williams

Do you hear that sound? It’s the thunderous clap of women’s reproductive rights collapsing in on itself. Or so some women’s groups would have you believe, given their outrage over CBS’s decision to air yesterday’s Super Bowl ad from the evangelical organization, Focus on the Family.

According to a news release distributed by Focus on the Family, the commercial recounts the pregnancy of Pam Tebow, mother of 2007 Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow.  As the story goes, Pam was seven months pregnant when she contracted dysentery while working as a missionary in the Philippines.  The treatment for dysentery posed such serious risks to Pam’s fetus, that her doctor recommended abortion.  Pam refused out of religious conviction, and a star football player was born.

By any reasonable measure, the ad was mild, respectful, and definitely not offensive. It certainly didn’t cram religion or a pro-life position down the viewers’ throats.  It did not invoke politically charged labels like “pro-choice” or “pro-life.” It is not angry, dark, or violent.  Nor does it demand that politicians legislate away anyone’s reproductive rights.  The ad simply recounted a heartwarming tale of a woman’s conviction in the face of adversity. Seems pretty innocuous, right?

Not so, says several feminists groups, who have decried the ad as an all-out assault on women’s reproductive rights. The National Organization for Women (NOW), NARAL Pro-Choice America, the Women’s Media Center, and the Feminist Majority Foundation all urged CBS to abort the ad.  In a letter to CBS, the Women’s Media Center said CBS was giving “one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization.”  That letter accused CBS of throwing women “under the bus” by “encouraging young women to disregard medical advice, putting their lives at risk.” Not to be outdone, Erin Matson, the new Vice President of the National Organization for Women’s (NOW), called the ad “hate masquerading as love” and labeled it an “anti-choice” missive. Feminist attorney Gloria Allred went further, claiming that Pam Tebow made up her story about rejecting an abortion.  How ridiculous, insulting and certainly insensitive.

Why are the relativists always the first to cast judgment on the religious, while the religious reserve judgment not so that their own beliefs will remain unchallenged, but because they either fear the reaction of those they’re judging or are trying to “judge not, lest [they] be judged” themselves?

Their statements — nihilistic and repulsive to the core — is self-refuting: On the one hand, they argue that there is no superior truth or “way,” but underscoring this claim is 100 percent certainty that their way — their nonjudgmental-ism — is clearly the superior way.

Their comment are truly vile. The commercial in question didn’t preach. It simply leads by example, providing would-be mothers who contemplate whether abortion is right for them with — yes, gasp! — a bit of compunction, hoping women pause to contemplate whether abortion is really the right move.

What the pro abortionist comments ultimately reveal is that this isn’t about choice for them — it’s about abortion … the right to abort whenever, for whatever reason, however, wherever a woman wants, with no need to pause or consider. It is truly evil. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton showed an unusual amount of courage and thoughtfulness — and yes, even a sense of morality! — when she said abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.”

Notably, none of the organizations spewing anti-Tebow vitriol had actually seen the ad before dispensing their divisive and misguided rhetoric.  Somehow this rousing fact hasn’t stopped them from “uniting in tolerance” and demanding that CBS abort the ad. This response is at least somewhat ironic coming from the self-styled harbingers of “choice.”  I guess society should be tolerant about the most intimate decisions women make about their bodies, unless those decisions involve choosing to keep their babies.

These groups are supposed to represent women.  They fail to do so when their response to objectionable political ideas is urging women everywhere to cover their eyes and ears. Do the women of NOW think that women are so weak-minded that they are going to abandon their reproductive rights after seeing 30-second ad about a woman continuing her pregnancy in the face of adversity? The sheer stridency of their response smacks of desperation.

This point was not lost on the New York Times, which stopped just short of accusing the women’s groups opposing the ad of agitating for political censorship:

Instead of trying to silence an opponent, advocates for allowing women to make their own decisions about whether to have a child should be using the Super Bowl spotlight to convey what their movement is all about: protecting the right of women like Pam Tebow to make their private reproductive choices. . . .After the network screens ads for accuracy and taste, viewers can watch and judge for themselves. Or they can get up from the couch and get a sandwich.

Get it? Their attempts to get the Tebow ad pulled was the wrong response, well-meaning or not. Abortion is a contentious social issue. As with all contentious social issues, the national dialogue benefits from a diversity of perspectives.  Indeed, this country’s entire First Amendment history is animated by the idea that truth rises up from the friction of diverse views. Where the marketplace of ideas is concerned, more speech–not less—is the best revenge. If women’s groups are concerned about the Tebow ad, they should have purchased their own ad time, instead of agitating for censorship. This kind of open exchange of ideas would provide the public with the best possible information from which to consider, debate, and discuss an important issue—as they should in a healthy democracy.

Notably, CBS has invited the protesters to buy their own ad time. So far, no one has taken CBS up on their offer. With mind-numbing intransigence the women’s groups continue to agitate for censorship. In doing so, they betray an essential truth about themselves: to them, pro-choice does not have anything to do with a woman’s control over her body; it simply means pro-abortion, and any views to the contrary should be aborted from the marketplace of ideas altogether.  How ironic that such groups claim to be “pro-choice.”

www.armstrongwilliams.com

“The Armstrong Williams Show” is broadcast daily on XM Satellite Power 169 from 9:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.

Tags: Uncategorized // Add Comment »

By Herman Cain

Last week I wrote an assessment of the real State of the Union. It was based on compelling and irrefutable facts. As expected, my assessment did not match what the president said last Wednesday in his State of the Union address. The president’s address was filled with new rhetoric and old policy, more promises that had already been broken, and more Bush-bashing.

As a result, listeners did not get a sense of direction, a reassurance that we are safe, positive prospects for renewed prosperity, nor did we get a sense that we are more united as a nation. Obama supporters will say that he needs more time.

Sorry, that dog will not hunt!

We do not need another year of trying to spend our way to prosperity with more spending on government, and hardly any real incentives for businesses to start growing and hiring again. Even though the president said, “Jobs will be our number one focus in 2010”, people were left wondering, “Where’s the beef!”

We do not need to give President Obama more time to break the same promises he has already broken on transparency, pushing back on earmarks in proposed legislation, and seriously listening to other ideas.

And continuing to try and deflect all of our nation’s problems on the eight years before he took office is a really bad excuse for a serious lack of leadership.

And then things got worse.

I am not talking about the just reported growth in GDP in the fourth quarter of 2009 over the third quarter. Even though the Associated Press article described the 5.7 percent growth rate as having “boomed” at the end of 2009, you have to read way deep into the article for them to point out that the 2009 growth rate over 2008 fell by 2.4 percent overall.

I am also not talking about the new jobless claims, or the fact that the unemployment rate is still expected to hover around 10 percent, or that many analysts do not expect these latest two quarter-over-quarter growth rates to be sustained.

Things got worse when the Senate approved a 15 percent increase in the statutory debt limit from $12.4 trillion to $14.3 trillion. Although the House will also have to approve the new debt limit and the president must sign it, the likelihood of them not doing so is somewhere between zero and zero.

The new debt limit is bad news because whenever Congress raises the limit, then it is just a matter of time before they come close to it and have to raise it again. It is called runaway tsunami spending.

The new debt limit is also bad news because it represents an additional $5,000 for every man, woman and child living in this country. This is on top of the $40,000 of debt the government had already committed for each of us. Sooner or later, it will have to be repaid, or eventually the state of our union will be bankrupt. Unlike some big banks and General Motors, the USA is not too big to fail. Uncle Sam does not have a bailout sugar daddy.

More federal debt is driving down the value of our U.S. dollar, thus, reducing our spending power as consumers domestically and in the global market place.

More federal debt and the uncertainty of what the Democrat-controlled Congress will do about the existing tax rates that will expire at the end of this year keeps businesses in a state of stop. As long as that remains, the economy will remain in a state of stalled.

That’s not good for the State of the Union.

Tags: Uncategorized // Add Comment »

I want to make you aware of a nationally distributed on-line digital publication, which aims to reconnect the African-American community to its conservative political roots. Freedom’s Journal Magazine, following in the tradition of the first African-American newspaper of the same name first distributed in 1827, is the premier forum for conservative Black voices on political reform in our nation. The Founder/Publisher, Dr. Eric Wallace of Chicago-based Wallace Multimedia Group, is committed to the cause of revitalizing conservative (L.I.F.T) principles, freedoms and a judicious political process, which reflect the traditions, values, and issues of our nation’s African American constituency. Through timely, insightful and educational news and commentary that promotes a biblical-worldview; FJM is uniquely positioned to not only elevate the profiles and opinions of leading black conservatives, but more importantly incite those within the Black community to action on behalf of conservative values.

Recently when asked his opinion of this highly charged topic, Dr. Wallace responded, “While abortion still largely remains a voluntary choice, abortion providers, like Planned Parenthood, and many Black leaders continue to convince would-be mothers in the African-American community to unwittingly support wide-scale destruction of their unborn—under the guise of rising out of poverty”.

Subsequently, this special edition of Freedom’s Journal Magazine (Issue 1, 2010), available on-line now, focuses on the racist underpinnings of abortion, the illegal activities of the abortion industry, and the devastating impact of abortion on the African-American community. Titled Maafa 21: Exposing Black Genocide in the 21st Century, this issue includes, an article, which explores abortion’s economic impact on the African American community; an interview with the creator of the explosive documentary film Maafa 21; facts concerning the truth behind school-based clinics that promote promiscuity, and the racist history of the Eugenics movement and Planned Parenthood’s Negro Project. Additionally, FJM contributors provide relevant insight and commentary on how and why the African-American community must fight back against the demoralizing form of “legalized” genocide, which is rapidly destroying its community.

I invite you to click here, to preview this issue of Freedom’s Journal Magazine. Once you’ve experienced the value of this resource; please consider lending your support by making as many family, friends and associates aware, as possible. Celebrate the rich history of the African American community in the U.S. and become one of the 20,000 who subscribe to Freedom’s Journal Magazine this month. Please see page 2 for the “limited offer” with subscription.

Now is the time for us to “stand for what we say we believe, and actively engage in the political process that represents us“.

Thanks

Jennifer Wallace

V.P of Communications

Tags: Uncategorized // Add Comment »

By Harry R. Jackson, Jr.

Last week I had the privilege of participating in a referendum request hearing at the Board of Elections in Washington, DC. Our team petitioned to have the people of the District of Columbia vote on the recently passed “Same-Sex Marriage Law” before it goes into law. We feel very strongly that the people’s voice needs to be heard.

As I sat in the chambers, I felt a growing sense of outrage at the audacity of my city’s elected officials and the hubris of our appointed civil servants. There seems to be an amazing assault on the basic freedoms of all Americans, regardless of race. Courts and legislators seem compelled to ignore polls and the heartfelt values of the people. Further, in DC the Board of Elections and the City Council have ignored the District of Columbia’s Charter, which should act like the “national constitution,” but on city affairs.

Most people do not realize that the city offers two ways for citizens to be involved in co-equal legislation with the city council. The first way is through an initiative process, which allows citizens to actually put laws on the books. Second, citizens can request the right to vote on legislation that they feel is not in the best interests of the city. This referendum process is synonymous to giving the people the right to veto what the council has done.

It is ironic that the license plates of this city say, “Taxation Without Representation.” Most of the citizens of the city would say representation means that the people’s voice should be heard. Given this background, I want to share an edited version of my personal statement before the board.

“This is my third time before this board. Each time, I have asked you to let the people vote; let their voices be heard concerning the definition of marriage in the District. And each time, you have denied the people their right to vote. You have dubbed me, and the hundreds of others fighting to put marriage on the ballot in the District, as “discriminators” and “civil rights violators.”

“Let’s be clear about one thing: the only civil right at issue here is the people’s right to vote. Those supporting the redefinition of marriage have repeatedly attempted to align themselves with the historic struggles of blacks. Indeed, during the debates on the “Same-Sex Marriage” bill, councilmember Catania invoked President Andrew Johnson’s vetoing of an 1865 Congressional law granting black men suffrage in the District.

“But redefining marriage has nothing to do with the historic civil rights struggle in this country. The civil rights once denied to black Americans included several things: first, the right to vote, second, the right to use public facilities; third, the inalienable right to a fair hearing; and fourth, the right to education in an integrated school.

“Let me pose the following questions: Have those supporting the redefinition of marriage been denied any of these rights? Have they been forced to sit in the back of buses? Confined to segregated neighborhoods? Barred from serving on juries? Subjected to systematic economic exploitation?

“Plainly, suggesting that the people of the District should be the ones deciding whether the city should reject the timeless definition of marriage deprives no one of civil rights. For if opposing the redefinition of marriage is like opposing civil rights, then my fellow voters and I are no better than racists, the moral equivalent of those who turned the fire hoses on blacks in Birmingham in 1963.

“But we know all too well what real bigotry looks like. Many of us recall the nearly 5,000 blacks, who were lynched between 1860 and 1890. We remember the bombings of churches, like the 1958 bombing of Bethel Baptist Church in Alabama. We bring to mind the slayings of civil rights workers in Mississippi in 1964.

“My teammates say it is absurd to suggest that what we are now asking the board to do is tantamount to supporting the pervasive humiliation and cruelty of Jim Crow. A fundamental gulf separates the civil rights movement from the demand for marriage redefinition. One was a fight for genuine equality, for the right of black Americans to live on the same terms, and under the same restrictions, as whites. The other is a demand to change the terms on which marriage has always been available by giving it a meaning it has never before had. That is not civil rights.

“For black Americans like myself, civil rights legislation was a declaration of victory over the social evil of racism. It was a proud day for us when the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965. The discriminatory voting practices of the South were put to an end. President Lyndon B. Johnson called the passage of the act a “triumph for freedom.” In addition he explained that this of this discrimination, “no American, in his heart, can justify. The right is one which no American, true to our principles, can deny.”

“It is a great irony then that 45 years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, this board has denied that same right to vote on the plea that we are, in essence, “racists.” Such an assertion mocks the civil rights for which we as black Americans have fought. We ask that the board stand on the true heritage of civil rights in this country and let the people vote. Thank you.”

In addition to our efforts before the Board of Elections, the Congress has legislative days from approximately January 12, 2010 to March 2, 2010. During this time, the actions of the DC City Council will come under review. Therefore, if meaningful action is going to be taken it must occur during the month of February. Please join us by contacting your senators and congressmen. Both houses have the ability to impact this law.

Tags: Uncategorized // Add Comment »

By Star Parker

Why are pro-abortion groups so up in arms about the Tim Tebow ad that CBS will run during the Super Bowl?

According to the press release of Focus on the Family, the Christian organization sponsoring the ad, the former University of Florida Heisman Trophy winner Tebow and his mother, Pam, “will share a personal story centered on the theme of ‘Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.”’

The Tebows are devout Christians, and Pam gave birth to Tim despite advice from her doctor to abort because of illness during her pregnancy. Since the script is not publicly available, all we know is the family story and knowledge that the ad passed muster with CBS.

We spoke with Focus on the Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger and asked if the ad in any way speaks to the politics of abortion. The answer was an emphatic “no.”

According to Schneeberger, it’s “not selling, it is celebrating” and is about the “love between a mother and a son.”

So what’s provoking the letter writing campaign of feminist groups to CBS to pull the ad? Why would the National Organization of Women call this “offensive to women” or would the Women’s Media Center call it “divisive”?

Sure, there’s no question that Focus on the Family is pro-life and opposes legal and readily accessible abortion. But CBS wouldn’t be running this ad if its focus was political advocacy.

So what’s bothering these women?

Two things.

First, the enabler of human brutality is de-humanization. Pro-abortionists know that our existing legalized abortion regime can only continue as long as we keep the human face off abortion.

It’s why ultrasound has revolutionized this world. When young women who have doubts about taking their pregnancy to term see the live child within them, they overwhelming decide to give birth. You don’t have to preach. They see that this is life and they know what to do.

I have written in the past that if the personal ultrasound experience could be conveyed to public consciousness, the abortion holocaust would stop.

The Tebow story will put this human face on abortion for the 100 million or so who will watch the Super Bowl. Nothing could be scarier for the culture of death.

When Harriet Beecher Stowe published Uncle Tom’s Cabin, she put a human face on slavery. When the American public understood that slaves were human beings, the capacity to tolerate slavery was punctured.

Abraham Lincoln supposedly said to Stowe when he met her in 1862, “So you are the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war.”

Last week Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke at Auschwitz, the former Nazi death camp in Poland. It marked the 65th anniversary of the liberation of the camp, where over one million, mostly Jews, were murdered.

The six million who were slaughtered in the holocaust in Europe challenges comprehension. But the meaning of this changed when Anne Frank’s diary was published in English in 1952. When the public at large read the thoughts and feelings of this young girl, recorded in hiding before she went to her death with her family, the human face of the holocaust emerged.

The second aspect of the Tebow ad that scares abortionists is that it shows that love arises from personal responsibility. This beautiful story of a mother and son shows that love is not about political claims but about individuals taking responsibility for their life and knowing that life is about more than self. It is caring for others and knowing that you are part of something bigger than just you.

At a time of great spiritual unrest in our country, I believe this courageous initiative taken by the Tebows and Focus on the Family will be well received.

Tags: Uncategorized // Add Comment »

By Ken Blackwell

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen is better than a stopped clock: He’s right more than twice a day. But even as a thoughtful liberal, he bears the burden of knowing many things that are not so.

Ten years ago, he wrote a painfully honest column on Partial-Birth Abortion. He described this horrific killing procedure and said it made him shudder. He wrote powerfully that he shuddered at the people who do not shudder.

That was then. In the last election go-round, Cohen did not shrink—or shudder—at supporting Sen. Barack Obama for President. Not only did Barack Obama support Partial-Birth Abortion, as an Illinois state senator he was even unwilling to protect the child who survives an abortion. Richard Cohen didn’t shudder; he shrugged. Cohen is no single issue man.

Cohen was introduced to Sen. John Edwards by Sen. John McCain several years ago. It tells us volumes that McCain was chumming in the Senate Dining Room with the very liberal Cohen. Cohen writes that Edwards made a strong first impression. After smiling his way through the initial pleasantries, Edwards strode off, probably to stroke his well-coiffed forelock. “Keep your eye on him,” McCain said.

Cohen did. And he was in time to be appalled by the tawdry tabloid person that is called John Edwards. This man could have been President, Cohen reacts today, and shudders.

What did we really know about John Edwards, Cohen asks now. Well, Edwards is finished. But Barack Obama is not finished. And Cohen asks the same question:

What do we really know about him? “Let Obama be Obama,” some of Cohen’s liberal friends are saying. They know that he was always supposed to be their Reagan. Now, Cohen asks, what does that mean?

Very much to Barack Obama’s credit, no one dreams that he is anything but a dutiful and devoted husband and father. This is something very important to know. It will give him great strength to face the storms in which he now finds himself. The Post also reports that Barack Obama confides seriously in his wife, Michelle.

Our First Lady has made it a point to meet frequently and in-depth with military families. She is said to have far better access to these families than the President has to ordinary Americans. She is therefore a good sounding board for him. I doubt very seriously that military families are urging her to tell the President to pursue the ultra-liberal policies he has pressed on us all this past year.

Richard Cohen held forth during the Ronald Reagan era. “When we were asked to ‘let Reagan be Reagan,’ we could be certain it was a call for a hard-right turn. Ronald Reagan had devoted many years to the conservative cause.” We all knew him. Obama, by contrast, appeared on the scene like a Midwest twister. He was just six years ago in the Illinois state legislature and afterwards a sometime U.S. Senator.

No wonder Cohen wonders. Americans are wondering more these days about Barack Obama.

I have to dispute Cohen on one point about Reagan. Whenever the call went up to “let Reagan be Reagan,” it did not necessarily mean a hard right turn. Integral to the Reagan political identity was his firm pro-life stance.

The close identification of this oldest of our Presidents with the youngest of Americans gave this strong man a kinder and gentler aspect. The man who could say to dictators and terrorists: “You can run, but you can’t hide,” could weep unashamedly upon being told that, because of his administration’s appeals, a Baby Doe on Long Island did not die.

Her parents had been advised not to let their Downs Syndrome newborn have a simple operation to clear her blocked esophagus. Because Ronald Reagan spoke, hearts were touched and lives were saved. At least on this, let Obama be Reagan. Then, none of us will have to shudder.

Tags: Uncategorized // Add Comment »