FJM Blog

By Rev. Wayne Perryman

I know that many people across the nation are praying for the election and for the outcome of the election.  But they must know that God will not determine who will win this election, the people will determine who will win.  God is not choosing a president, the people are choosing their president.

Throughout history the people have chosen godly leaders and evil leaders.  It was the people’s choice when they asked to have a King like all the other nations.  The political leader (a King) wasn’t God’s will - it was what the people wanted.  They wanted a change (I Samuel 8:3) and God gave them the change and the consequences that went with the change according to I Samuel 8:4-19.

Years later, the people were given a choice again.  The government asked the people, who do you want Jesus or Barabbas? The people chose Barabbas.  The government asked the people, what do you want us to do with Jesus? The people told the government to crucify him (Luke 23:18-21).

In both cases, the people made the choice and they had to live with that choice.  Whomever the people choose in this election of 2008, our prayer should be that the Lord will turn that president’s heart toward God and that he will be led by, guided by and that he will govern by godly principles.  Keep in mind, God will not make the leader govern by godly principles, like choosing a president, it will be his choice and our consequences (Isaiah 30:1-3 - Jeremiah 14:11-12).

Remember, godly principles exalt a nation and God who protects the nation (Prov. 11:11 - Prov. 14:34 - Psalms 127:1).

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Peter LaBarbera

As a social conservative, one of the most troubling aspects of this presidential campaign has been the media’s (and John McCain’s) failure to flesh out Barack Obama’s “audacious” doublespeak on the issue of same-sex “marriage.”

Here’s the question Obama was lucky enough to have never been asked in this campaign: What does it mean to say you support traditional marriage (one man, one woman) – when you do so much to advance the pro-“gay marriage” cause, including denouncing state marriage-protection amendments like Prop 8 in California as “discriminatory and divisive”?

Did you know that Obama has promised homosexual activists that he will work to fully repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act? DOMA was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996 and protects states from being forced to recognize out-of-state “gay marriages.” It was passed overwhelmingly by the Senate, 85-14, with Sen. Biden joining 28 other Democrats in voting yes. How liberal is Obama’s anti-DOMA scheme? Hillary Clinton, a trusted gay ally, pledged to repeal only part of DOMA.

Continue reading click here

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

Here is an article from my good friend Fran Eaton who writes for the SouthTown Star, a local Chicago suburban paper. She explains why she is voting for McCain. It is a must read.

by Fran Eaton

Instead of using my last opportunity before the election to once again expound on why Barack Obama should not be our next president, maybe it’s better to tell you why I am voting for John McCain.

This exercise reminds me of the first time I spoke on behalf of a presidential candidate - when I was in sixth grade. That year, Mr. Dean, our sixth-grade teacher, asked for volunteers to speak on behalf of Lyndon B. Johnson and Barry Goldwater.

Johnson was running for re-election a year after President John F. Kennedy had been assassinated. Johnson was tough, crass and lacked the Kennedy finesse, but he earned the nation’s trust and was heavily favored to win.

Goldwater’s ideas were anti-Democratic, and his unpolished message fell flat. People saw Johnson’s Great Society programs as compassionate and hopeful for the nation’s downtrodden.

Goldwater would be a tough sell, but somebody had to do it. It wasn’t that I was fervently Republican and enthralled with Goldwater as much as I thought both candidates’ views should be heard. Mr. Dean rewarded my volunteerism with an “A.”

Those memories rushed back as I was thinking of why I am voting for McCain. The reasons I’m not voting for Obama are numerous, and I’ve listed them at various times during the past two years. But why be for McCain?

First, McCain is the only candidate who can beat Obama. As a Republican president, he will balance Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in Congress.

Second, McCain is a proven patriot. His time spent imprisoned in Hanoi during the Vietnam War demonstrates his trustworthiness as a leader, soldier and American. He makes me proud to be an American.

(click here to continue reading)

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Armstrong Williams

John McCain must be one of the most frustrated men on earth these days. In a little more than a week, the country will head to the ballot box and decide who will be its next president. Yet Republicans can’t seem to close this stubborn 5-7 point gap in the polls, let alone in key battleground states. In previous election cycles, Republicans slept a bit easier. Democrats would open into double digit leads through the late summer months, only to see them close to low single digits and even within the margins of error during the final autumn days of October. But the foot-race Senator McCain was banking on hasn’t materialized. Why?

It’s tempting to blame the media. After all, collecting and reporting the news has become an industry in itself. Let’s not forget that. Publishers are in the news business because it yields a profit, and tend to chase stories (and people) who are the most scintillating and provocative. It sells papers, and that grows the bottom line. That’s why Barrack Obama is on the covers of Time, Newsweek and even GQ and Vogue lately. He’s rapidly becoming a cultural icon, and crosses the political bounds that typically confine a pol. And while he may only wear $40 ties from Macy’s, the folks off 5th Avenue know they sell more magazines when he graces their pages.

The disillusioned conservative would say it’s the man himself. No, not THEIR guy, but our guy – John McCain. After all the political enemies he’s made through his tenure in Washington, they postulate, is it any wonder the man even has a dog left as a friend? And while Obama outspends his opponent nearly 4-to-1 these last few weeks, several conservative millionaires who typically bank-roll “Swift-boat” style ads around this time have apparently thrown in the towel. That’s short-sighted on their part, because it hurts all the strong Republican candidates down-ticket who probably deserve to be in the seats they may lose if McCain goes down in flames on Election Day.

For me, Senator McCain lost his mojo when he bungled his response to the economic crisis. When the issue first exploded, I applauded his selfless decision to suspend his campaign and return to Washington to broker a deal. Yet that’s where the savvy moves ended. Senator McCain should have died on that hill – meaning he should have followed through on his doubts that the measure was good for the country and voted against it, decrying the common sense that was unmistakably left behind. I’m not saying he should have tried to score political points with the move, but in hindsight, did the bailout really do all it promised to do? After all, the credit markets were the ones hemorrhaging, not the equity markets. As I write this column, the Dow is bobbing like a child’s yo-yo, and the bailout seems more a distant memory than a current elixir.

But the real source to John McCain’s frustration is Obama himself. This guy must be made of Teflon and covered in pixie dust. He has skillfully parried all of the McCain campaign attacks, and shown a certain splash of grace in the process. You have to give credit to the Obama campaign and his handlers. They didn’t overreact when Team McCain tried to go for the jugular. While much of that was due to Obama’s style, there was substance behind the move as well. During the latest debate, for example, McCain would make a solid point regarding the bailout and what was in the plan to get the economy moving again. But while McCain talked about the plan’s attributes (thaws credit, lowers rates, etc.), Obama talked about its values. He distilled the plan down to what it means for the average American, and then he folded in other concerns families are facing – education and health care – and revealed the thread that links all of them together. That shows a grasp of the big picture. I don’t doubt that Senator McCain fully understands the big picture, but possessing the ability to share that message and connect with the mass citizenry continues to haunt his campaign. If McCain and his supporters are manipulating themselves into believing that the Bradley effect will save them on Election Day, they need to think again. The Bradley effect only impacted Tom Bradley and no other minority candidate since that long ago era has lost an election because of it. This is a new day for the Republican Brand and their chorus line of candidates. Unless they deliver a message and gimmick that is so riveting between now and next Tuesday they will be taken to the slaughter house on Election Day. Quietly most within the Republican inner circle are sensing this and are just praying that carnage will have minimal damage.

So are we looking at the next Bill Clinton in Barrack Obama – a political Superman who is seemingly bullet-proof? If he’s elected president, expect to see a long honeymoon from the Washington press corps, that’s for sure. But, he’ll certainly retain his non-stick layer when it comes to criticism. Is the smooth talking Senator from Illinois the man for this season? If he wins and fails to live up to the promise that the American people have placed in him, you will see a throw back to the original Teflon man where he lost not only his political firepower, but his non-stick coating. ..

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Herman Cain

When the financial crisis started in the United States, it affected the entire global financial system. That’s the bad news.

When unprecedented steps were needed to help stabilize the world financial system, the United States had the biggest shoes. That’s the good news.

Unprecedented steps by the Federal Reserve Bank, the U.S. Treasury and the FDIC were not always pretty but necessary, and they were certainly criticized and politicized to death. But our deep debt pockets, enough confidence in our weak dollar by the rest of the world, and our overall financial framework allowed the U.S. to drop the biggest anchor in these financially troubled waters.

When some banks finally admitted that their balance sheets had gotten out of balance (too many liabilities for too little in assets), they stopped lending to each other. Go figure! Not all banks were in deep trouble, but too many of them had over extended themselves.

If banks are not lending to each other then there’s a slim chance to none that they are going to make loans to you and me and Joe the Plumber. Thus, the flow of credit and cash froze up domestically and around the world.

The credit freeze was not caused totally by the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but they were the catalyst because of the size of their toxic mortgage-related holdings, along with some bad decisions by some banks.

When the credit markets came to a halt, the Federal Reserve Bank injected some liquidity by making some unprecedented loans to banks. This was intended to inspire the banks to start lending again, but that action alone was not enough.

With the authorization of the Economic Rescue Legislation, the Treasury then purchased temporary equity in some banks at a preferred dividend rate. This would provide some additional liquidity to the banks to help thaw the credit markets, which would include direct loans, lines of credit and the short-term commercial paper market.

When consumers got nervous about their bank deposits and money market accounts, the FDIC was able to step up and provide increased limits of insurance on deposits and new coverage of money market accounts. If they had not taken these steps there could have been a “put it under the mattress” run on accounts that would have compounded the problem.

At the same time the domestic and international stock markets were going crazy looking for the bottom and a new equilibrium. We may be near the bottom, but finding a new equilibrium is months away.

It’s called a recession, and it is here.
The financial crisis has caused historic levels of volatility in stock markets around the world. It is also going to cause some financial pain on Main Street with job losses we have not seen in the last 50 years.

The good news is that, in the last 50 years, the economy has been in a growth mode 84 percent of the time, while in a recession 16 percent of the time.

We now need to give all of these unprecedented steps by the Federal Reserve Bank, the Treasury and the FDIC some time to work their way through the financial system.

Not many countries could have taken the steps we have taken to address this crisis to the degree we have. Yes, we should not have gotten into this situation in the first place. And yes, there were some better approaches to the problem. But politics does not always allow the best solution to come to the forefront.

When we have the biggest economy in the world, we have to take the biggest steps in the world to address the problems.

We did.

We now need to take a big chill pill and let it work.

© 2008 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

by B.B. Robinson, Ph.D.

Isn’t it rich when something that was drilled into your head when you were a child starts making perfect sense?

For me, it was Proverbs 4:7 - “Wisdom is the principal thing, therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting, get understanding.”

During the current economic crisis, this advice is especially relevant.

Black Americans appear to have been disproportionately affected by the subprime loan crisis. Consider that, according to a study by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, subprime mortgage loans were more prevalent than prime loans among blacks in 98.5 percent of 331 metropolitan areas surveyed in 2003.

Why were subprime loans so prevalent? Where were the warnings?

Passage of the Community Reinvestment Act - which essentially required increased diversity in lending - and other easy money lending policies were catalysts for increased subprime lending. Motivated by profit, mortgage companies aggressively marketed subprime loans to financially-questionable Americans, black and white, who snapped them up.

Business is about contracts, and subprime mortgages were contracts stacked against the uninitiated and unaware.

After becoming sick due to the consumption of subprime loans, the nation is now turning to economists for healing. If economists are supposed to be able to prescribe a cure, why didn’t they warn us about them at the outset? Specifically, where were the black economists? Why didn’t they sound the alarm so that black Americans could avoid the subprime loan trap in the first place?

For many black economists - and white economists for that matter - it was not a case of knowing and not telling. It was more a case of not realizing the problem until it was too late.

Like other disciplines, economics is compartmentalized. Unless one specializes in financial economics, one wouldn’t necessarily be familiar with or focusing on developments in the financial markets. Too many black economists instead specialize in labor economics and focus on employment discrimination.

These black economists do a lot of getting, but they aren’t getting a balanced understanding.

Subprime mortgages were a creation of the financial sector. As a member of the National Economic Association, an association of black economists, I know that the number of black financial economists is miniscule.

Black economists missed the warning signs. Now, who’s responsible for saving those harmed in black America?

How about individual responsibility? Those in trouble should fend for themselves. Don’t look for black economists to come to the rescue. They didn’t in the past, so why expect them now?

Thankfully, there is a means to get out of this crisis. It’s easy to say, “That stuff is too complicated - only the experts understand it.” How, then, did the experts learn it? They either taught themselves or were taught. But, even with good teachers, it is often better to do your own research and develop your own methods of problem solving.

The idea that one should not practice on their own behalf - that is, serve as your own doctor or lawyer - does not necessarily apply to financial matters. Learn the basics. Keep to simple practices. Avoid complex investment schemes such as derivatives and subprime loans unless you completely understand them.

If you follow sound economic and financial principles, you can help solve any financial crisis you may face.

Avoid the “suffering servant,” “victim” and “I-need-an-expert” mentalities. Endeavor to learn the basics of the financial system, as it will give you a better chance of weathering the storm. Not only will this course allow you to gain knowledge, but also get you the proper wisdom and understanding necessary to survive and thrive economically.

B.B. Robinson, Ph.D. is a member of the national advisory council of the black leadership network Project 21. You can visit his website at www.blackeconomics.org. Comments may be sent to Project21@nationalcenter.org.
A New Visions Commentary paper published October 2008 by The National Center for Public Policy Research, 501 Capitol Court NE #200, Washington, D.C. 20002, 202/543-4110, Fax 202/543-5975.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

by Harry R. Jackson, Jr.

The most frequent objection of those who fear the presence of believers in government is, “What right do you have to impose your morals on us?” Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council tells them, “The same right you have to impose your lack of morals on us.” Someone’s values will always be reflected in public policy. Almost every government policy decision is a value judgment. In this postmodern world, where moral relativism is the philosophy of choice, these value judgments are often based on the conditions of the moment rather than objective, transcendent, biblical truth. This is where the two sides diverge.

Bible-believing Christians believe there is absolute truth, a view that was held by all Christians until the turn of the twentieth century. Belief in objective truth is the first step in developing a Christian worldview. A Christian worldview is based on the belief that there is a personal God who is directly involved in the activities of man and who authoritatively communicates to man through His Word and the Holy Spirit.

Shortly after the Civil War, the Protestant church divided over this belief in a literal interpretation of Scripture. Liberals moved away from Scripture as the sole authority in order to accommodate “rational truth,” which they saw as incompatible with the Bible. These liberals embraced the “essence of Christianity” rather than the inerrancy of Scripture so they could synthesize their Christian thought with so-called scientific findings of the day.

One of the preeminent voices to emerge in defense of absolute truth shortly after the turn of the century was a Princeton Theological Seminary professor and Presbyterian minister, J. Grescham Machen, who would later lead a split within the Presbyterian Church over the rejection of biblical orthodoxy.  In his definitive work, Christianity and Liberalism, Machen said that liberalism was not only theologically wrong but was not connected at all to true Christianity. “What the liberal theologian has retained after abandoning to the enemy one Christian doctrine after another is not Christianity at all, but a religion which is so entirely different from Christianity as to belong in a different category.”  Machen felt that the argument was no longer between two views of evangelicalism, conservative and liberal, but rather a conflict between two religions. Liberalism is “a type of faith and practice that is anti-Christian to the core,” Machen wrote.

What has transpired in many mainline denominations over the last one hundred years gives clear evidence of the results of abandoning absolute truth. Mainline denominations have shrunk in size and no longer debate the inerrancy of Scripture but issues such as the ordination of homosexuals. As we look at their decline, we wonder what will be next for a church or a society that has rejected absolute truth.

The present divide among evangelicals that the media frequently points to as “evidence” of the declining influence of the conservative Christian movement is not new. In 1984, Christian theologian Francis Schaeffer spoke to the cause of this divide—a rejection of absolute truth. Schaeffer chastised those who had compromised their view of Scripture and had accommodated the culture in the name of “love.”

Unfortunately, a growing number of Christians are influenced more by the popular culture than Scripture in terms of their worldview. Even younger evangelicals, who tend to track conservatively on most core social issues, do not consistently view the world from a biblical perspective. In late 2003, Christian sociologist and pollster George Barna conducted a fairly extensive poll on the prevalence of a “biblical or Christian worldview” in the United States. He defined biblical worldview as being based upon a foundation of eight beliefs:

1. Absolute moral truths exist.

2. The Bible defines these absolute moral truths.

3. Jesus Christ lived a sinless life during His ministry on the earth.

4. God created the universe and continues to rule it today. He is omnipotent and omniscient.

5. Salvation is a gift from God. It cannot be earned through good works or behavior.

6. Satan is a real living entity.

7. Christians have an obligation to share the gospel with the unsaved.

8. The Bible is accurate in all of its teachings.

What did he find? Only 4% of the total population of American adults have a biblical worldview. The fact that only 9% of born-again Christians have a biblical worldview was almost beyond belief.

In light of these dispiriting statistics, Christians must return to emphasizing God’s truth and God’s love. America currently stands at a crossroad. Many of our national problems are a result of our churches abandoning truth. It is not the institution that needs to seek God – it is every individual in each one of the nation’s pews.

A truly repentant church will experience a spiritual renewal. A renewed church can once again be salt and light to the nation. A critical mass of godly Christians must be reached.  If we use the imagery of today’s light bulbs we don’t yet have a high enough wattage light bulb to truly lighten our nation.  Once we have reached critical mass, the Lord will pour out tangible blessings upon the entire nation in honor of a faithful church that lives and preaches biblical truth.

Although the media often calls the faithful “divisive,” we must defend truth without compromise. Schaeffer reminded his readers that absolute truth requires confrontation. One cannot simultaneously accommodate the culture and stand for truth. But he also challenged those who defend truth to simultaneously display God’s love.

Our penchant for truth must also be displayed with compassion. It’s America’s only hope. Join me this week in fasting and praying for God’s choice for the presidential, congressional, senatorial, and other elections. Pray that a third great awakening will arise out the ashes of our economic woes. Join me serving the lost, the least, and the last.

This article is an adaptation of an excerpt from Personal Faith, Public Policy, written by Harry R. Jackson, Jr. and Tony Perkins (FrontLine Publishing). Visit www.hilc.org or www.frc.org for more information.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »