FJM Blog

Star Parker, founder and president of CURE

The message of my last book, “White Ghetto”, is that the social chaos in inner city black communities is symptomatic of the cultural pathology gripping the nation as a whole.



Inner city black American life is a leading indicator of American culture and a product of the ascendance of materialism and relativism. Blacks have been first because they have been the most exposed and vulnerable.



When 20 percent of black babies were born to unwed mothers in the 1960s, this was sufficiently outside the national norm to be perceived as a uniquely black problem. But today, as the black rate has soared to 70 percent, the incidence of white out-of-wedlock births, now almost 1-in-3 three, exceeds the black incidence of 40 years ago.



The symptoms of social and cultural unraveling — family breakdown, promiscuity, teen pregnancy, abortion — are today increasingly manifested in white as well as black America.



Now, according to a lengthy profile in the Wall Street Journal, America’s pre-eminent marketer of the culture of meaninglessness, Planned Parenthood, plans to help expedite this process and is retooling to go beyond targeting poor blacks to reach out to all Americans.



The article, “Extending the brand: Planned Parenthood Hits Suburbia,” discusses how the organization is mobilizing its now-considerable resources — a $1 billion dollar budget, with a reported $100 million-plus surplus — to build glitzy new multimillion-dollar centers and express outlets in malls — to reach women of means and everyone else.



Soon your daughter, too, can learn that the point of her life is her own pleasure and that other human beings, in or outside of the womb, are mere tools to be used toward that end. And, according to the organization’s president, Cecile Richards, they want to reach young men as well as women.



What, after all, is our national specialty if not marketing? So, as Starbucks is to coffee, as Wal-Mart is to volume sales, so Planned Parenthood is to nihilism.



Until now, Planned Parenthood clinics have been strategically located in proximity to black neighborhoods and schools. But blacks only constitute 12 percent of the country. It makes all the business sense in the world for Planned Parenthood to move into the rapidly growing new Latino community and into mainstream white America.



Marketing itself under the happy face of providing “reproductive health” services, Planned Parenthood provides 1-of-5 abortions done in the country. Although the overall number of abortions performed each year has dropped, the percent done by Planned Parenthood has increased, translating in absolute numbers to almost 300,000 annually.



About one-third of abortions are black babies.



Let’s be clear that the main goal of these abortion services is not to save lives of women whose life is in danger as result of their pregnancy. The objective is birth and population control.



In this sense, the organization has been true to the vision of its founder — socialist, eugenicist, and racist, Margaret Sanger.



Sanger created the “Negro Project” in 1939 whose aim was to put a lid on the growth rate of the black population. She was an advocate of the use of sterilization as well as abortion to eliminate the “unfit.”



Recent news about the teen pregnancy epidemic in Gloucester, Mass., has caused shock. More shocking was learning that the pregnancies were intentional. I’ll add that further shock resulted from the girls being white.



A black teenager intentionally getting pregnant is not news.



Meaninglessness may be transmitted to brains but it does not get transmitted to bodies. As young black women, in the face of despair, have asserted life through pregnancy, we now see this happening with young white women.



Planned Parenthood gets one-third of its budget, over $300 million, from the federal government — from U.S. taxpayers. This is the size of the budget of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Sixty thousand black children in failing inner city public schools, kids largely from broken families, could get $5,000 scholarships each to go to a private school, a religious school, and learn values that could give them a chance for a successful life.



Let’s get out of the business of marketing meaninglessness and death. At least, let’s stop forcing U.S. taxpayers to subsidize it.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Armstrong Williams
June 19, 2008
 
 
It is hard not to appreciate the rhetorical flourish contained in Senator Obama’s recent critique of the McCain campaign’s ties to lobbying interests, “that lobbyists aren’t just part of the system in Washington, they’re part of the problem.” It was a kitschy, sound-bite ready statement that, while cleverly worded, may be a bit simplistic.  The fact of the matter is that lobbying is rooted in the right to petition contained in the First Amendment of the Constitution, and goes back to the Bill of Rights in England and the Magna Carta.  The right to petition the government is one of the cornerstones of Democracy, and abridging that right by forcing petitioners to resign from political campaigns just doesn’t sit well with me.
 
While I am willing to concede that at times special interest lobbyists have held inordinate influence over the political process in Washington, lobbyists actually play an essential role in the political process.  By addressing government directly, lobbyists pray for relief in a manner that often cannot be addressed by legislation or judicial intervention. At various times in the history of our country, most notably during the anti-slavery debates of the mid-nineteenth century, petitioning Congress proved to be an invaluable strategy for addressing the ills of slavery – a practice that was legally sanctioned at the time.
 
Certainly the evolving complexity of government regulations has placed our country in the position that the average citizen (whether human or corporate) often has no idea who to turn to in order to address his or her grievances. Government has in some cases become such a labyrinth that even the representatives themselves are scarcely able to navigate the corridors of power.  Thus, professional lobbyists play an important role in both informing the process, providing analysis for complex issues, and representing issues in a more immediate and direct sense than elections alone.
 
In fact, if he were to be elected, Obama would need information generated by lobbyists and think tanks in order to inform policy choices.   That’s because even the most capable of administrations is hardly equipped to digest the deluge of policy papers, draft legislation, and judicial precedent that flood the nation’s capital on a daily basis.  He will have to start somewhere, and that somewhere will be where the people have directed their own focus in the form of issue-based, grass roots lobbying.
 
An upcoming article by Nicholas W. Allard, a lawyer at the Washington lobbying firm Patton Boggs makes the point that increased regulation of lobbying activities and more restrictive ethics laws have actually made lobbying a more, not less, lucrative profession.  Perhaps unintentionally, many of the new rules governing lobbying further remove the average citizen from accessing the ear of government.  Furthermore, rather than remove money from politics, the rules ensure that more money will be spent on political fundraising and other activities.
Long gone are the days when fat cats waited in the lobby of Washington hotels for the chance to offer the President or some member of Congress a cigar and scotch.  Now, lobbying is a highly specialized profession, closely related to law and medicine.  Lobbyists who chose to support political candidates in their free time should not be punished just because of their professional affiliations.  Certainly those affiliations deserve to be disclosed when appropriate, but they are far from disqualifying.
 
The intricate, sometimes essential relationship between politicians and lobbyists makes one wonder whether Senator Obama truly has a plan for reforming lobbying practices in Washington or whether he is merely using the issue to score political points against his likely rival for the office of President.  To be fair, almost all of the top strategists on the staff of the major candidates either currently, or in the past, have advocated for some sort of special interests – whether as lobbyists, elected officials, attorneys, or otherwise. Furthermore, given the nature of the profession, lobbyists are well suited to run campaigns because of their familiarity with the issues and their knowledge of the political process.
 
Finally, let us not forget that the Constitution guarantees American citizens the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. In some sense this is a symbolic right, in that it does not confer a corresponding responsibility on behalf of the government to address the petition, grant a hearing, or even acknowledge the grievance in any formal way.  There are of course other mechanisms (i.e. voting, the courts, etc.) for achieving these ends.
 
 
 
www.armstrongwilliams.com

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

Reagan’s leadership established the Republican brand in the 1980s, which stayed in ascendancy throughout the 90s, even through Clinton’s presidency

Star Parker, founder and president of CURE

For conservatives and Republicans who are wondering what in the world happened to their party, we should recall June 12, 1987.



That day, exactly 21 years ago, President Ronald Reagan stood before the wall dividing East and West Berlin and directed his famous appeal to the leader of the then Soviet Union, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”



The rest, as they say, is history. Two and half years later, the wall was down and a new chapter begun.



It’s always worth recalling Reagan’s courageous act and words of that time. But we particularly should consider it now in light of today’s Republican conundrums.



I turn to the well-known account by then-Reagan speechwriter Peter Robinson about how it all came about.



The story of Reagan’s Berlin speech, as recounted by Robinson, is about change and fighting the Washington establishment. Exactly the themes we’re hearing almost every day now from our current presidential aspirants.



Robinson wrote the speech for President Reagan, including the famous “tear down this wall” line, and submitted it for review. The opposition to it from the administration’s entire foreign policy establishment was uniform and adamant.



The National Security Council and the State Department were opposed, as was our highest-ranking diplomat in Germany. They felt it was too provocative and too unrealistic.



But, the president liked it.



After several drafts, at a meeting to review the speech, Robinson told Reagan that his words would be broadcast on the other side of the wall, in East Berlin. Robinson asked him if he had anything to say to those people.



“Well, there’s the passage about tearing down the wall,” Reagan said. “That wall has to come down. That’s what I’d like to say.”



Seven drafts later, the establishment was still trying to purge the speech. Reagan was on Air Force One, en route to Berlin, when there was a last attempt to block it. But the speech was delivered, including the historic line, which stayed in, according to Robinson, “solely because of Ronald Reagan.”



Reagan’s leadership established the Republican brand in the 1980s, which stayed in ascendancy throughout the 90s, even through Clinton’s presidency, when Republicans captured the House.



Bill Clinton himself drew capital off this brand, running as a fiscally conservative “new Democrat.” It was Clinton that told us that the “era of big government is over” and signed into law historic welfare reform in 1996, sent to him by the new Republican controlled Congress.



Now we’ve watched Republicans turn the Congress over to the Democratic Party and it appears likely that they will do the same with the White House.



The “liberal” label is no longer the political death ray it was in the 90s. Sen. Barack Obama’s record is as left as you can get, yet it is doubtful that Republicans will defeat him by simply pointing this out.


New Gallup polling on party identification shows Republicans or those leaning Republican at 39 percent. For Democrats, the corresponding figure is 52 percent — the biggest gap in party identification in years.



How has the Republican Party managed to thoroughly squander the commanding heights achieved under Reagan’s leadership?



Unfortunately, courage and leadership are rare. Reagan understood and was committed to what this country is uniquely about — traditional values and individual freedom.



Most come to Washington for careers, not to serve. With Reagan’s departure, the risk-averse, career motivated establishment, which quaked at the idea of the president publicly challenging the Soviet Union, or taking principled stands on anything, began to take over.



Republican politicians have also lost touch with their own base. A Pew Research Center survey shows that Republicans are more religious now than they were 20 years ago. Today’s Republican leadership refuses to acknowledge that the social agenda has increased in importance.



My office in Washington is in the Reagan Building, where a piece of the Berlin Wall is on display. It’s a reminder of a great leader and how the Republican brand has been tarnished by many less principled and less committed.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
1 Comment »

By Joshua Beal

The family unit has been the backbone of human civilization for thousands of years, yet the past few decades have seen a severe decline in the sanctity of this preeminent social institution. Less people are getting married, more children are being born out of wedlock, and more children are being put up for adoption. A family unit headed by a mother and a father provides the stability a child needs to succeed and to thrive, yet fewer and fewer households are meeting those specifications. A relatively recent social movement, which could be likened to a gay civil rights movement of sorts, has complicated matters. Homosexuals are fighting for the right to marry, and that battle is picking up steam nationally and has already been won in California and Massachusetts. A slightly more recent development, with even greater implications, is the fight for gay adoption. It is far beyond the scope of this paper to argue the legitimacy or morality of homosexuality; however, the principle aim is to express to the reader that the gay adoption movement should be thwarted and eradicated because it is detrimental to the family unit, damaging to the children involved, and an evolutionary hazard to the human race.

One reason gay adoption should not be legitimized is that it is an attack on the sacredness of the family unit. If the family unit is indeed the backbone of American society, sanctioned gay adoption would be a “backbreaker” on the reputation of traditional family life. Family is about morality, a man and a woman loving each other enough to try to walk a straight line for the betterment of their children. On the other hand, homosexuality and morality go together about as congruently as Hitler and Martin Luther King, Jr chatting over a cup of tea. Most gay relationships are marked by brevity in duration, promiscuity, and instability, a stark contrast to the ideals of family life.

Another key reason homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt is that same-sex parenting is unhealthy for children. According to a report on infantile development in homosexual households, Children raised in same sex households are predisposed to low self-esteem, stress, confusion regarding sexual identity, mental illness, drug use, promiscuity, and, unsurprisingly, homosexual behavior, according to a report on infantile development in homosexual households. The report also exposes numerous faulty studies, usually conducted by homosexuals and gay activists, that claim homosexual parenting is not harmful to children without providing sufficient research. There is extensive research that refutes these “studies,” which in actuality are little more than gay propaganda. Common sense tells us that a child growing up with two mothers or fathers will be confused about gender roles. Children see parents as role models, and it is common sense that tells us that a little boy with two fathers is more likely than a child with a traditional family to grow up questioning his sexuality.

The strongest argument in support of gay adoption is two-pronged: first, that disallowing gay adoption is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; and second, that with the huge number of children in foster care, any potential parents, regardless of sexual orientation, should be welcomed with open arms. Supporters of gay adoption feel that children would be better off with gay parents than in group homes, and to that extent, they are unequivocally correct. Children succeed in where they are loved and cared for, and a gay household is definitely better for children than state care. Gay adoption supporters also believe that gays have a right to have a family despite their sexual orientation. To that point, nature steps in and offers a rebuttal.

Gay adoption should continue to be disallowed because it goes against the moral fibers of the natural workings of the world. Gay adoption would essentially be cheating Mother Nature. In nature, one must go through the pains and struggles of the reproductive process to reap the benefits of parenthood. If a lesbian woman wants a child, she needs to lie down and “take her licks,” so to speak, no pun intended. And if a gay man wants a child, he needs to suck it up and have sex with an actual woman. As disgusting as that sounds, those are the rules of nature mankind has abided by since the inception of civilization. If gay adoption is sanctioned, then the next step for gays is to continue to challenge nature creating a mechanism for gay reproduction. Gay men will artificially inseminate lesbian women, a sinful conjugation that would give the offspring homosexual genes from both parents. A child with gay genes and gay influence from parents has virtually no chance to become a heterosexual. A homosexual race would thus emerge, eventually growing strong enough to challenge heterosexuals for power and influence. This process can be stopped if we eliminate the momentum of the gay family unit before the slippery slope has become too steep. The only way to do this is to stigmatize the gay family unit now by stopping homosexual adoption in its tracks.

The family, which was once the strength of the community, is in shambles, and it is my fear that the legitimization of families headed by same-sex couples could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. The repercussions of gay adoption will be felt in other ways than the inevitable confusion faced by children of such households. Family will never be the same again, and the long-term evolutionary health of the human race will be in jeopardy.

Joshua Beal is the grandson of Rev. A. D. Williams King, I; the great-grandson of Dr. Martin Luther King, Sr; and the great-nephew of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
1 Comment »

By Dr. Alveda C. King with Elizabeth Stoner

Galatians 4:16 - Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

In preparing this chapter, I was constantly plagued with the burden that accompanies the mantle of bearing the conservative label. I find that I resist being painted into a corner and confined in a box that is currently labeled as “conservative.” The labels of Conservative and Liberal are just as dangerous and misleading as any other labels. They are ambiguous and subjective so they don’t convey a clear meaning.  Then when they are attributed to or appointed to a person or a group, an instant division occurs. Labels prohibit people who often share common beliefs on certain issues from standing together with others who may believe some of what the first group believes, but not everything they believe.

The following definitions should clearly and easily distinguish the group labeled “liberal” from the group labeled “conservative.”

Liberal - favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

Progress - a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage:

Conservative -  having the power or tendency to conserve; preserve

Reform - the improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt, unsatisfactory, etc.: social reform; spelling reform, to put an end to (abuses, disorders, etc.).

Conserve - to prevent injury, decay, waste, or loss of

Preserve - to keep alive or in existence; make lasting: to preserve our liberties as free citizens, to keep safe from harm or injury, protect or spare.

Yet, we find that even the definitions overlap, causing one to wonder if liberal means conservative and vice versa.

For instance, some stand for protecting the lives of our children at ALL stages of life, beginning with the conception of the 46 chromosomes, and ending at natural death. Pro-lifers are not preventing nor denying life, liberty and justice, pro-lifers are not holding back liberty of life. So pro-life can be both liberal and conservative. Oh what fun it is to play the label game.

My friend Elizabeth explains it this way: “We have driven a lot of cars in our day, some new, some used and some just mere relics of what once was. At one point when our money was low, we purchased a vehicle that came with those wonderful outdated political bumper stickers. There is nothing like running around with a Carter bumper Sticker when George Bush Sr. is in office. So, being naïve as to the tenacity with which these labels are designed to adhere to the surface they are placed on, I figured I could apply some elbow grease and chemicals to get the label off. The next morning after breakfast I went forth, armed with my rubber gloves, srcuggie, soapy water and pure ammonia.

First I applied the soapy water liberally and then tried to scrub through the label with a scruggie- no give. Then I applied pure ammonia, and the only thing that loosed up was the congestion in my head. Next I went into the kitchen for a razor blade, figuring I could gently get the edges to come loose and then ease the rest of the label off. After about 20 minutes of trying this, the only thing that gave were my rubber gloves, which now had so many bits missing, I had to go get another pair. While I was inside I grabbed an extension cord and a hair dryer, assuming that if I heated the sticker, it might come loose. But it never did budge completely; I was able to get bits and pieces of it off, but never the whole thing. It now looked worse than when I started so since we had only paid $150 for the car, and it already had the seats duct taped, I dried the chrome bumper off and neatly covered the offending bumper sticker with a piece of gray duct tape, calling the morning a “wash.”

As I sat on the porch sipping my ice tea and rocking back and forth in my chair, a light suddenly came on in my mind. I realized that the morning had not been a futile effort at all. There were scores of lessons to be learned from that old bumper sticker.

First, labels stick. When we as Christians label one another, be it our children, our spouse or our fellow man, those labels have a tendency to stick. The more we use them, the greater the intensity of the bond between man and label becomes. We get tired and frustrated that our toddlers have not yet learned to see what is so obvious to us and suddenly we call them stupid, or dumb, or some other barb that sticks in their minds and begins to grow. We feel insecure or frightened so we give groups and organizations brands that portray them as the enemy and then wonder why we can not work together or live together in harmony. We view religions, creeds, ethnic groups and even socio-economic groups as either acceptable or not by criteria that are often based on fear, insecurity, lies and sin. Then, after we have wrongfully judged the groups in question, we resort to labeling them with hateful, demeaning, divisive names that stick. Later, when we find a common cause, we struggle to unite, yet often fail because of distrust, deep wounds, and divisions these labels have bred within us. Labels stick.

Secondly, labels are hard to remove. Sadly, we often realize our mistake after the toddler has become a young adult. He’s grown up hearing us berate him in anger with labels that each year ingrained a false understanding of himself into the fiber of his heart and character until finally, when we wake up and see what we have done, the damage is so deeply rooted, it will not easily be removed. The economy is a problem, yet another war needs to be addressed, poverty is rampant and spreading and as a society we need to come together to solve these problems, but the labels are stuck. We don’t trust each other. We don’t see each other in the light of what we can become but rather in the archaic and hateful labels we have grown up to embrace. So then our collaborations are weak when we need them to be strong, and we find the ability to stand together for a good cause difficult to nearly impossible when it should be so easy. We want to trust each other, but the labels are sticking. We want to not be afraid, but the labels are sticking. We want to forgive each other, but the labels have bonded deep into our hearts. We want to unite, but the divisions are so many and the labels just will not give. Labels are hard to remove.

Thirdly, sometimes we just have to put a patch on it and try to move forward in hopes that time will heal. The patch is not pretty. The beauty of the sparkling polished chrome bumper will be forever marred by the patch, but gradually, over time, things change. The bumper gets old and starts peeling and rusting and suddenly a duct tape patch doesn’t stand out so much. But it takes a lot of time and sadly, while we can move forward, there will always be damage to some degree, left behind.

Labels prevent us from loving one another as God has commanded us to do. Labels inhibit us from doing unto others and we would have them to unto us. Labels hinder us from allowing the fruits of the Spirit to flow from our hearts to those around us. Labels ostracize people who are created in God’s image and cause us to do what God says is foolish- judging ourselves by others rather than by the law of God. Labels impede the movements of unity, peace and harmony for which our families, our communities, our nation and our world are pleading.

Labels are something Christians must avoid at all cost. After all, the bumper stickers we are applying in our daily lives are adhered to human hearts, not mere cars or buildings. The bond and the subsequent damage runs deep and affects not only individuals but families, communities and nations for generation after generation. The use of labels in our lives MUST stop- immediately. I hope you remember this thought every time you see a bumper sticker.”

After reading and re-reading Elizabeth’s analogy, I realized why it took so long for me to write this chapter. I was waiting for her to journal this truth. Labels are divisive, and boxes are restrictive, which is why I resist the label of “conservative.”

The practice of accepting and assigning labels and boxes is just as bad as assigning separatism to the human race. This practice is deceptive and dangerous. We are one human race, not separate races and classes divided by skin color. There is no red or black, or white or brown, or yellow race. There is one human race with ethnic distinctions. So when we put people in a “color box,” we begin to discriminate, which is sin!

Another practice of labeling and boxing is restricting God given gifts that emerge in people we have stereotyped, labeled and boxed in. For example, can an accountant not also be a poet? Can a scientist not also be a great cook? When we label people according to our understanding of their gifts and talents, we leave no room for God’s creativity to abundantly burst forth in multiple streams. I have a friend who is a real estate and investment genius. Yet, he is a wonderful composer and producer of music. People tend to try to tell him that his music is a nice hobby, but that he should stick to one thing. How sad!

In the beloved community, so named by my uncle, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., labels, boxes and separate races don’t exist. To close by returning to the initial thought, the conservative label is not a badge of honor. It is a state of being, a cry for liberty in a world that is hungry for truth. Let us pray that we move on from labels and boxes into a higher place where love abounds.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

For most of my life I have blindly followed the tradition of my fathers by voting Democratic. Unbeknownst to what I was voting for, I believed the Democrats were the party for blacks. However, as one in his early thirties I have discovered that the Democratic values of government dependency, pro-choice, gay-marriage, and restriction of liberties does not match well with my values of limited government, pro-life, and free markets. It is no secret the majority of blacks share these same values, but they have either knowingly or unknowingly aligned themselves with those whom I believe have held the black community down far too long.

As one three years into the conservative agenda, I am ready to add my voice to the clarion call of Black Conservatism. I would like to make three recommendations to those with more experience and expertise in this movement to awaken the masses. We face a monstrosity of a task in November 2008, so I want us to prepare for 2012. Let us begin now to lay the groundwork to take back our communities from the destruction of the secular-progressive agenda.

First, we must find young and innovative conservatives who we can mentor. We know that style more than substance is the mark of this generation, which is most clearly seen in the Obama candidacy. Fresh faces that can clearly and effectively communicate the conservative agenda are critical to placing a wedge in the free flowing tide of liberalism in the black community.

Second, we must re-introduce ourselves to the black community. They simply don’t know what we stand for. We have to beat the L-I-F-T drum of Limited Government, Individual Liberties and Responsibility, Free Enterprise, and Traditional Family Values. Often I ask people to write down their political positions on certain topics and then to compare them to both platforms and see which party most reflects their values. Amazingly, they discover they are conservatives. The black church is a conservative institution; they just have to be reminded of that. We can make headway into this major constituent group if we tell them who we are.

Finally, we must organize. I have yet to hear on Fox or CNN of a black conservative voice. We have Evangelicals, Pro-Lifers, and Pro-Gunners, but black conservatives have no influence in the conversation because we have no unified voice. We must organize into a national coalition that recommends candidates and party office holders, solidifies our message and agenda, and develops strategies for reclaiming black districts.

I am convinced that we have the better message and can defeat the Democrats, but we have to start now and be intentional about making 2012 a year that we will win districts.

Eld. Isaac C. Hayes is the president of Heat on the Streets Ministries (www.hotsministries.com), a worldwide ministry that focuses on evangelistic-outreach and discipleship. He can be contacted at ichayes@hotsministries.com.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
4 Comments »