FJM Blog

by Wayne perryman

One of Obama’s primary campaign themes is to give tax relief to the middle class while taxing the rich so that we can spread the wealth.  This is a very noble endeavor and similar to a work that I started as a teenager to feed the poor during the holiday season. Since millions of Obama followers share his concern for the less fortunate and middle class, I suggest the following:

Before we turn this concept into law, let the Obama supporters voluntarily put this concept into practice.  I would recommend that all millionaire entertainers, athletes, business owners, and liberal millionaires in Congress who supports Obama’s share the wealth concept start by giving away at least 80% of their wealth to those in the inner-city, in the Appalachian region, and the poor in the rural areas of the South.  In addition to using this money to build free medical clinics, new homes and new businesses in those communities, I will assist by getting a list of the poor from churches in these communities so we can distribute some of this money directly to poor families.

For all the churches that are supporting “the share the wealth” concept, as a minister of the gospel I will help each church establish a fund where 50% of the church’s total income will go to the poor in their communities.  And if there are any poor that remains after this voluntary effort from our liberal millionaires and churches, we will tax the remaining rich who refuses to give voluntarily. To those that believe in Obama and his share the wealth concept - they will have no problem donating their wealth for this most worthy cause.

Obama should also start a matching gift fund to share the wealth.  He should require that everyone who attended one of his $5,000 a plate fund raising dinners or his $20,000 per person events, must donate that same amount to a fund to help the poor and middle class.  He has a list of all those donors, so we should have no problem tracking who they were.

Regarding the Other Countries that Support Obama

Obama should require that every country that support his candidacy, show their support by returning the Foreign Aid that American taxpayers have paid to them during the past 50 years, so that we can strengthen America through Obama’s sharing the wealth program.  We know these countries love Obama and that they have our best interest in mind and will jump at the opportunity to be part of his share the wealth program.  He should ask them to also remove any tariffs on our imported products and that they no longer accept jobs that American companies have shipped overseas so our people will have more jobs.  Additionally, as part of the share the wealth program we ask each country that benefited from the wars that we fought on their behalf, to pay America $5,000 for every American soldier that gave their lives to secure and protect their country.  The money will be used to share the wealth in America .  I know that the Obama millionaires and the foreign citizens of other countries that support his candidacy will line up to participate in this wonderful worthwhile program.

Tags: Uncategorized by Rev. Perryman
No Comments »

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

by Armstrong Williams

Sometimes the right candidate comes along at the wrong time. They have just the amount wisdom and experience, gained over a lifetime of dedicated service to their country. They have placed party over principle, sacrificing short term political gains and making a clear demonstration of putting the American people ahead of their own career advancement. John McCain is such a good man; but unfortunately, this may not be his season of triumph.

Barack Obama, arguably a lesser candidate in terms of experience and judgment, nonetheless appeals to voters looking for a change. This popular sentiment has driven him from obscurity to celebredom in a remarkably short period of time. So quickly has Obama risen, in fact, that no ones really knows where he stands on crucial issues; in fact it can be argued that he himself doesn’t know where he stands, because he has never really had to take a stand in a time of crisis. He voted “present” on tough votes in the Illinois senate, passing on the blame, but not the credit for decisions made by that legislative caucus. He spoke out against the Iraq war, but conveniently after the vote had already been taken (no one knows what decision he would have made in the Democratic caucus had he been in office at the time of the vote). Nonetheless, his personal qualities, academic credentials and critical stance on the war brought him to prominence, as news of the carnage in20Iraq, the wounded veterans returning, and astronomical war costs drove Americans to question our nation’s decision to go to war.

John McCain, to his credit, was also critical of the Iraq war but more responsible in his criticism than Senator Obama. As a former navy pilot and prisoner of war, he knows all too well the true costs that armed confrontation inflict both on the victor and the defeated. He does not take the decision to go to war lightly. He has demonstrated a far better understanding of the operational requirements of a war time footing, as well as the geopolitical implications of various decisions. He knows that we just can’t go and bomb Pakistan in hopes of taking out Osama Bin Laden without Pakistani government approval. He understands why the course of action in Pakistan< /st1:country-region> is so complicated. Furthermore, Senator McCain was outspoken in his criticism of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who arguably mishandled the execution of the war in a way that opened Iraq up to the insurgency we are experiencing today. Rumsfeld’s “unknown unknowns” were not in fact unknown to Senator McCain, who understood that post-war security, “take and hold,” was essential for creating stability in Iraq, and preventing the conflict from spilling over into the region. Under Secretary Rumsefeld’s leadership that is certainly what happened.

While Senator McCain is arguably the better of the two candidates on security and foreign policy, this war has had significant domestic economic effects. For one, because of the ongoing conflict, we have been unable to fully exploit the oil resources of Iraq. Moreover, some of Iraq’s neighbors and friends in the U.N., such as Venezuela, have gone to fought us economically, by restricting the oil production from their own reserves. To make matters worse, China’s growing economy has placed increased demands on the world’s already tight energy supply. While not a direct consequence of the Iraq war this factor has certainly impacted the supply and price of oil.

The fact of the matter is that the American electorate has come to view the war in economic, rather than merely political terms. The threat of terrorism is seen as secondary to America’s economic security. This is where Obama obtains his major advantage. Se nator McCain has admitted that he is not as strong on economic issues. Moreover, his chief economic advisor, Senator Phil Gramm, put his foot in his mouth when he demonstrated a complete lack of empathy with the plight of the American worker, calling this a “mental recession” that had no basis in economic reality. The facts on the ground in recent months have certainly indicated otherwise, and further expose Senator McCain to the accusation that he just doesn’t get it on domestic economic issues.

Furthermore, Senator McCain’s free market stance, normally a boon to Republicans, seems to go in the face of the obvious misdeeds of major corporations in fanning the housing crisis. It is almost universally admitted that the housing crisis stemmed from unchecked greed, in terms of the capital markets extending too much credit to individuals who they knew did not have the ability to repay their debt. Just about the only thing that can prevent this from occurring in the future is more regulation. And this is something that Senator McCain absolu tely hates. In making his case for how he will deal with the housing crisis, Senator McCain has used the words “oversight” and “reform”, but never, ever “regulation.” One questions whether oversight without an effective regulatory framework is really enough of a solution to the market debacle. The reform he proposes is really about taking minor actions to improve America’s social and economic condition without radical or revolutionary change. And it corresponds with his assertion that the U.S. economy is “fundamentally strong.”

Senator McCain thus finds himself somewhat boxed in. The gains made in Iraq in recent months, with troop levels down to pre-surge levels without a recurrence in violence, almost don’t count right now. Moreo ver, the dire economic situation seems to call for a radical solution, not a mere patch up of the system. These conditions play perfectly into Senator Obama’s hands, and it seems all he has to do is play it safe over the next few weeks in order to win. Senator McCain, on the other hand, has been forced to take a series of risks, which not only have made him look desperate (which he is not), but also taken his campaign off message and into defensive posture. If this keeps up, we will be reading his epitaph come November.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

by Herman Cain

Earth to taxpayers! Owning stocks in banks is not nationalization of the banking industry. It’s trying to solve a problem.

The unprecedented financial crisis has caused the Treasury of the United States to take unprecedented measures to help solve the problem of frozen credit and cash flow for U.S. businesses.

Most of us had dreams of what we wanted to be when we grew up as children. Some of us wanted to grow up and become a fireman, a policeman, a doctor, a nurse, a lawyer, a teacher, an actor, an engineer, a writer, a dancer, a chef or any number of other professions.

But some of us wanted to own a bank because that’s where the money is!

Wake up people! Owning a part of the major banks in America is not a bad thing. We could make a profit while solving a problem.

But the mainstream media and the free market purists want you to believe that this is the end of capitalism as we know it. It is not for several reasons that they have conveniently not explained.

First, instead of buying toxic mortgage-related assets of banks as originally proposed, the Treasury has changed tactics and will buy equity positions called preferred stocks, which gives us as taxpayers an ownership stake in their success for a limited period of time.

Preferred stock means we get paid a dividend before any other stockholders get paid a dividend when they make a profit. You got a problem with that?

Second, the purchase agreement between the Treasury and the participating banks has an incentive for the banks to re-purchase the stock back from the Treasury within five years.

If the banks do not re-purchase the stock in five years then we get a bigger dividend until they do re-purchase the stock. That’s a good deal!

The free market purists’ objection to this is that it smacks at government control of the banking industry, which is called nationalization. They are correct. It smacks, but it is not nationalization because that would require the government to own at least 51 percent of the entity for an indefinite period of time.

The ownership by the taxpayers is going to be relatively small and nowhere near the amount needed to be called nationalization. So what’s the problem?

The problem is economic illiteracy and media incompetence. Some people want to continue to fan the flames of anger and outrage over how we got into this mess in the first place. Anger and outrage will not solve the problem.

Unprecedented problems require unprecedented solutions. The actions by the Treasury are a win-win for the taxpayer. But the mainstream media does not get brownie points for reporting win-win solutions for the taxpayers. Their focus is doom and gloom.

These actions by the Treasury, the Federal Reserve Bank and the actions by the Federal Depositors Insurance Corporation (FDIC) are all intended to help solve an unprecedented financial crisis. Unlike steps taken prior to and during the Great Depression, these actions have a high probability of success.

In order for these collective actions to work, the media needs to calm its crisis rhetoric, and Congress needs to just shut up with its political rhetoric.

Now don’t tell Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, but if this works, and I believe it will, the Bush Administration will have gotten this one right.

As we say in the South, y’all hush!

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Harry R. Jackson, Jr.

The role of the church in the public square has been the subject of many recent debates. Much of the concern about Christians and the evangelical Church has centered on how we will use our considerable secular power at the ballot box. While I agree that the Church should fully engage in the democratic process, there is much more we can offer the American public.

This article is something of an open letter to the Christian community. After weeks of reflection upon our current national problems, I arrived at a blinding flash of the obvious. My epiphany is that our spiritual standing before God is our greatest gift to the nation. In a manner of speaking, we have friends in “high” places.  We are the ultimate insiders.

When we pray and believe things happen. Unfortunately, we have not always understood the ways of God. We often pray when we should lobby and we lobby when we should pray. For example, during the Bush presidency there has been more prayer offered up for the nation than ever. As a result of all the prayer the Lord did many good things. In addition, he also allowed things to occur which could bring the rest of the nation to her knees. There is a war raging in Iraq, the economy is in shambles, and energy costs are soaring. Our national woes may cause millions to lose confidence in false gods, humanistic ideologies, and even their own abilities.

America needs to return to God and the Bible. Radical cultural reform and repentance will release the blessing of God to our land. Without such a spiritual awakening, the nation may languish for years in the throws of economic depression and moral decline. The scriptures say “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people” Proverbs 14:24 (KJV).

We Christians have been placed in this nation as a source of inspiration and blessing for America as a whole. The Bible promises that if God’s people will humble themselves and pray that God will hear from heaven and heal our land (2 Chron. 7:14). The Church can release a spiritual blessing on the nation that can turn the fortunes of the entire land around. This will happen as the Church is renewed spiritually. A third great awakening is needed to restore personal holiness to the Church and position the Church.

In Isa. 55:1-5, the Lord promises that if his people return to Him, he will heal their lives and bless their entire nation. Next, we will be a source of blessings and prosperity to many other nations as well. This has certainly been the historic legacy of our nation.

In this time of crisis, we must choose to renew our national covenant with God. Isaiah 55 implies that we must return to a sold-out, 100% committed form of Christianity in order to see God release an overflow blessing that will cause His people to be a light every strata of society.

Yet there is more! The Church has two important roles to play in the nation – an evangelistic role and a prophetic role.

In our evangelistic role we should be the ultimate voice of hope, encouragement, and spiritual direction. In this role, we should desire to win people over to our worldview with love, compassion, and kindness. As soul winners and evangelists, we must recognize that we have not been called to condemn people that live ungodly lives. Instead, we are called to give them hope and an example that they can live a life of personal victory and freedom.

In addition to our call to impact the world through evangelism, the American church also has a very profound prophetic role. Similar to the prophets of the Old Testament who called Israel and Judah to remember God and obey His laws, there is a place for us to do the same. The prophetic role of the Church often leads to direct confrontation around issues of national sin and the failure of the church. Politicians often call these prophetic issues “divisive.” In our book Personal Faith, Public Policy, Tony Perkins and I went to great lengths to define the church’s prophetic role and give practical, scriptural guidelines for our engagement in public policy and politics.

Even though there is a clear tension between the evangelistic and prophetic roles of the Church. America needs both.  Let us become the embodiment of The God’s Answer to America’s problems. Join me in a spiritual quest to become more like Jesus – living a life of personal holiness. In addition, let’s be the relevant evangelistic and a prophetic voice the nation needs.  Together, we can make the difference!

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Eric M. Wallace, PhD

Sunday morning I was quite disappointed to hear that a man who I had greatly admired left his party to endorse Barack Obama: the most liberal member of the US Senate. Now; I understand, and have understood, that Powell has always been a moderate. And as a conservative I’ve been willing to overlook some of our differences on the issues– but this is too much. How does a moderate Republican endorse a liberal (socialist) Democrat over another moderate Republican?

Besides, does Colin Powell believe in redistribution of wealth via the federal government? Or does America’s Promise co-chair believe Obama’s socialist ideology will help our nation’s children reach their fullest potential?

Obama opposes (among other initiatives) school vouchers, which have proven successful across the nation in helping children, especially the disadvantaged, to both learn and graduate High School. Additionally, Obama stands in support of the number one killer of African Americans—abortion. Sadly, since 1973 more than 14 million black babies have been sacrificed on this altar, which protects a woman’s right to convenience. Though let’s not forget, Gen Powell’s own support of a women’s right to kill her child, and for that matter, the rights of Blacks to perpetrate our own genocide.

Somebody (anybody) help me understand how the welfare mentality of the far-left could possibly help anyone improve their situation in life? We all know that bigger government means more dependence on that government for the needy, and higher taxes for everyone else. I don’t think this lines up with America’s Promise. The hope for prosperity and fulfillment of promise comes through hard work as Frederick Douglass, when speaking about the future of former slaves, said:
Our destiny is largely in our own hands. If we find, we shall have to seek. If we succeed in the race of life it must be by our own energies, and by our own exertions. Others may clear the road, but we must go forward, or be left behind in the race of life.
Furthermore, Gen Powell you’ve indicated that you feel the GOP has moved too far to the Right; yet, you endorse a man who is further to the Left than anyone else  in the Senate. I find this incomprehensible. Do you find more affinity with those who, at minimum, by their actions deny God and have distain for people, like Sarah Palin and myself, who believe that faith is a vital part of our lives, and a necessary component to shape public policy? Or have you forgotten that the “radical Republicans” who fought for the abolition of Slavery were evangelical Christians, or that the heart and soul of our party is now made up of people like them who fight for freedom and equality?

As Abraham Lincoln once said: “The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing, at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God’s purpose is something different from the purpose of either party - and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to affect His purpose.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, “Meditation on the Divine Will” (September 2, 1862?), pp. 403-404.

We evangelicals would argue that we are still in a civil war to establish societal norms. The left generally has rejected Judeo-Christian norms in favor of a secular humanist set of standards. The Right is fighting to preserve the legacy of our founding fathers, Abe Lincoln and Frederick Douglass who all recognized a Divine hand upon this nation and in the affairs of men. However; as Lincoln stated, “One side is right, while another is wrong or– we are both wrong”.

I contend; no matter how intellectual, articulate or thoughtful Senator Obama maybe, he is on the wrong side of the issues, history and, dare I say, Judeo-Christian values. Your endorsement of him, therefore, places you on that same side; and makes me question your judgment.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Deneen Borelli

Failing schools, crime and single-parent households are just a few of the challenges facing urban communities.  Now, thanks to “Club Green” - radical environmentalists and their supporters - soaring energy prices join the list.

Club Green fights against oil exploration in Alaska and off our coasts.  A moratorium on offshore drilling was removed from a temporary spending bill, ending a 26-year ban on new leases at the end of September.  While a hit to Club Green, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-WI) points out this boon to domestic energy production could be fleeting.  Obey told reporters, “This next election will decide what our drilling policy is going to be.”

Club Green blocks the construction of new coal-fired power plants that produce electricity. Plans for 59 coal-based power plants were canceled in 2007, and plans for 50 others are now being challenged.

All this leads to higher energy prices and pain in the pocketbooks of those who can least afford it.

According to the Census Bureau’s 2007 American Community Survey, the annual median black household income was $34,001 and $40,766 for Hispanics - well below the $50,740 national median.  Additionally, 24.7 percent of blacks and 20.7 percent of Hispanics lived in poverty.  As energy prices climb, they lose a higher percentage of their take-home pay to increased energy costs - leaving less for things such as savings, education and health care.

Seeking empathy from Club Green may be asking too much.

Al Gore, Club Green’s unofficial spiritual leader, lectured in Washington, D.C. in July about phasing out fossil fuels.  Despite his righteous talk about stopping the “catastrophic” effects of global warming, Gore can’t seem to walk the walk.

Gore flys in private planes, and his Tennessee mansion uses almost 20 times the energy of the average American home.  He was chauffeured to his July speech in a gas-guzzling motorcade of two Lincoln Town Cars and a Chevy Suburban SUV.  There’s nothing wrong with enjoying one’s wealth, but it’s hypocritical when Gore asks others to sacrifice their standards of living but does not seem to do so himself.

Naturally, powerful special interests such as the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense Fund - with operating budgets in the tens of millions of dollars paying for lobbying, ads and grassroots organizing - also comprise Club Green.  Celebrities such as Leonardo DiCaprio and Sheryl Crow and Al Gore’s lawmaker pals in Washington are also members.

Businesses also comprise Club Green, but often for less than altruistic reasons.  General Electric, for instance, makes wind turbines.  It’s therefore no surprise that GE subsidiary NBC Universal promoted environmental policies during its “Green Week” earlier this year by encouraging “…viewers and fans to Go Green with green-themed programming across all of its channels and affiliates aimed at entertaining, informing and empowering Americans to lead greener lives.”

Despite wind power hype and boasts about other renewable energy sources, 85 percent of our nation’s energy comes from fossil fuels.  Energy from renewable sources such as wind and solar only currently provide about seven percent of our power and cannot replace fossil fuels anytime soon.

In its September 2008 report, the federal Energy Information Agency predicted a 25 percent rise in heating oil prices and a 17 percent rise in natural gas prices this winter as well as a 9.5 percent projected increase in electricity costs in 2009.  Adding that gasoline still hovers near $4 a gallon, the public demands more domestic energy production.  A recent Rasmussen poll of likely voters found that 67 percent supported new offshore fossil fuel exploration.

Our nation is blessed with an abundant supply of natural resources.  The problem is that Congress, at the demand of Club Green, blocks access to these resources at the peril of families.

What’s highly disturbing about Club Green is that, like Gore, many of its leaders are among the elite.  They are the wealthy, famous and politically-connected people who are largely immune to the sticker shock of high energy costs.

Something is terribly wrong, because the wealth and the political access of a few are being used to dictate how everyone should live - effectively denying the majority their right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

__________
Deneen Borelli is a fellow for the Project 21 black leadership network.  Comments may be sent to DBorelli@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, E-Mail Project21@nationalcenter.org, Web http://www.project21.org.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
1 Comment »

By Star Parker

As John McCain tries to salvage his presidential campaign over the few weeks he has left, he ought to think about the Coca Cola Company in 1985.

That was the year that Coca Cola, based on what the company thought was good internal market research, introduced a new, sweeter formula to replace the taste that American consumers had always associated with Coke.

The result was disaster. Consumers were unhappy with the new flavor that replaced a product that was more than a drink. It was a time tested American tradition. In short order, Coca Cola brought the old traditional Coke back to market, and in a real feat of marketing gymnastics, was selling both New Coke and Coca Cola Classic.

Sales of Coca Cola Classic swamped sales of New Coke, and shortly thereafter, New Coke was gone.

Today John McCain heads the ticket of a Republican Party that many Americans have fallen out of love with. It’s a Republican Party that Americans once knew but now, like New Coke, has confused its customers, the voting public.

Restoring a brand that has been damaged might be an even greater challenge than introducing a new product. You’ve got the added complexities of confusion. But this is what John McCain has got to do. And he doesn’t have a lot of time to do it.

How can anyone be surprised that Americans are confused with the Republican brand? This was the party that once captured American hearts and minds by restoring focus to principles of limited government, traditional values, and personal responsibility.

Apologies to George W. Bush, but time is too precious for tiptoeing around the truth. We’ve seen the biggest growth of government over the last eight years since Franklin Roosevelt, and the country is in a mess. It’s only natural psychology to associate the mess with Republicans.

McCain must disassociate from the mistakes of “new” Republicanism, show that these mistakes are exactly where Senator Obama wants to pick up, and re-establish the “classic” Republican brand.

His approach in the latest debate at Hofstra University showed he is grasping the marketing challenge in front of him. His pitch about Joe the Plumber, and his market-oriented stands on big issues like health care and education, showed that he understands he needs to do more than simply say he’s not George Bush.

But he’s still not being clear or aggressive enough.

McCain must paint with clarity the starkly different worlds that Americans will be buying into when they step into voting booths in November.

Barack Obama is a socialist. McCain must say it. It’s not slinging mud but stating fact.

Perhaps a complicating factor in explaining freedom to Americans today is that when “classic” Republicanism was selling, we all still remembered the Soviet Union and communist China. The difference between the United States and the rest of the world then was clearer than today.

When someone said “socialist” or “communist,” we could look abroad and know exactly what this meant.

There is nowhere where Senator Obama sees Americans suffering from excessive government. The opposite. He sees all our suffering from not enough.

The collapse of communism and socialism abroad was not accidental. Central planning is both dysfunctional and immoral.

Incredibly, Obama thinks that a huge and complex market like health care, where a few hundred million Americans spend almost two and half trillion dollars a year, can be improved with more government controls and spending.

And he thinks that parents, in a country that is supposed to be free, should not be given control over where they send their child to school and the type of education their child gets.

To turn things around, McCain must quickly reestablish the Republican brand of freedom and contrast this with Obama’s clear socialism.

(Star Parker is a speaker and author of three books. She can be reached at star.parker.dc@gmail.com.)

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

What do you think about Powell’s endorsement? Has he betrayed his party? Would it have been better for him to have said nothing? Does his endorsement mean anything?

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
2 Comments »