FJM Blog

For Release: November 24, 2008
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org

Project 21 Senior Fellow Deneen Borelli is issuing a warning to President-elect Barack Obama: Don't let special interests control your Administration.
 
Borelli's comments come in light of the apparent success of ultra-liberal feminist groups in derailing the predicted nomination of Lawrence Summers to the post of Treasury Secretary.
 
Summers had been considered a favorite for the post, a job he held in the Clinton Administration.  Politico reported this caused an "intense backlash" from feminist groups, which, Politico reported, "have issued press releases slamming a Summers' appointment, organized e-mail campaigns to key Obama transition staff and communicated their outrage through back-channel connections."
 
Summers drew the ire of feminist groups in 2005 when he speculated that, among other possibilities, including possible discrimination, "innate differences" between men and women could account for the relatively small number of women in prestigious positions in science and engineering.
 
"President-elect Obama faces two dangers here," said Borelli.  "The first is if he permitted the feminist groups to blackball Summers for the Treasury post.  The second is if feminist groups and other special interests believe he did.  If they believe this, correctly or not, they'll attempt to derail other nominations and appointments of anyone they don't like.  They'll make Obama appointees fearful of speaking their minds honestly, as they'll always be looking over their shoulders, fearful that the Administration will buckle under any left-wing criticism of their work.  In such an atmosphere, it would be very difficult for the Administration to get anything accomplished."
 
"It's best," continued Borelli, "that Obama be tough early and often with the special interests.  He should slap them down hard anytime they try to blackball decent people just because they aren't 100 percent in lockstep with the left-wing agenda, or dare to raise issues that may not be convenient for the left to consider."
 
In the Summers case, Obama also could send a signal a subtle way, Borelli said. "The President-elect could let it be known that Summers' contribution to robust intellectual debate was one of the reasons he appointed Summers to the directorship of his National Economic Council.  He need not even mention the specific controversy; everyone will know what he means.  This will signal to the feminists that he nominated Timothy Geither to the Treasury Secretary post because he likes Geither, not because he was too afraid of the feminists to appoint Summers."
 
Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992.  For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21's website at http://www.project21.org/P21Index.html.
 
 

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Harry Jackson, Jr

In 2000, the Democratic Party failed to understand that they no longer had a clear message and they had lost touch with their constituency. Many licked their wounds and rationalized that the election had been stolen from them by cunning conservatives and the well–oiled GOP machine. It was not until their embarrassing defeat in 2004 that they realized that a “by any means necessary” approach to winning national elections was the way to go. The Democratic Party was in danger of becoming a small regional party instead of the national power it once had been.

It was in early 2005 that the Democratic Party made a decision to strengthen their connection with minorities (blacks and Hispanics), feminists, unions, and the blue-collar community. In addition, they decided to court the faith community, environmentalists, and gays with new vigor. In addition to the party reaching out to targeted constituencies, they took chances on many candidates who looked more like moderate Republicans than their candidates of a decade ago. Pro-life Democrats and people who speak openly about their faith are among the “new candidates” that have turned the party’s fortunes around. While no banners were flown in 2005, the fruit of that decision will place Barack Obama in the White House early next year.

The GOP can do the same if the will to win is strong enough. The McCain/Palin defeat was agonizingly painful for many conservatives. It would be easy to say that the economy made a McCain presidency unrealistic, or that a Democratic victory was inevitable.

Others would like to accuse President-Elect Obama of stealing the election with flowery words and “un-American” trickery. These folks have also taken the art of conspiracy theory rhetoric to a new level. Before this election, I thought that African Americans were the most conspiracy prone group in the nation. My new conviction is that in some circles, conservatives have cornered the market on both paranoia and negativism.

At the end of the day, America chose to accept the change offered by the Obama/Biden ticket instead the McCain/Palin alternative. As we rapidly approach the January inauguration, all campaign promises already seem like a distant echo from the past. The economy is in a shambles and a successful way forward is anything but clear. Fiscal conservatives feel blamed, stereotyped, and ignored. The “failed economic policies” of the Bush administration became the ultimate bad guy in the election. Ironically, as a new administration gears up those “failed policies” seem more difficult to define and will be even harder to correct. Most Americans are uncertain as to how do we protect our standard of living and the future economic security of the nation.

Similarly, social conservatives feel marginalized as their hard fought ballot victories that offered protection of marriage and family are contested by lawyers, legislators, and courts. The feeling of victory that many felt after Proposition 8 passed in California, reversing the legalization of gay marriage by a rogue supreme court; was soon taken away as law suits, protests, and threats erupted in California. Finally, national security conservatives wonder whether their concerns about Iraq, Iran, and terrorism will go unheeded.

At this moment in history it would be easy for conservatives to blame everyone else for our defeat. Anger and rejection will cause some to just wait for the other side to make a mistake. A better approach to take is a posture of positive engagement. But where do we begin? Our help may not be wanted right now, but America cannot climb out of the pit we are in on so many fronts without a large majority of people engaged and involved in the solution. This kind of engagement starts with a qualified post mortem. We conservatives must take ownership of our defeat. Unfortunately, the following words of Shakespeare are most appropriate “The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in us …”

Next year can mark the beginning of a new era of conservative activism. We must acknowledge that we have lost touch with the masses. The average person sees us as doctrinaire, mean-spirited, and hypocritical. In essence we have to return to walking the walk and strengthen our core values. This has to be done while sharpening our message and explaining our methods. The black and Hispanic vote for marriage amendments around the country, despite their overwhelming support for Barack Obama, demonstrates that there is hope for conservatives to make huge inroads into minority communities. A new breed of minority voter is emerging that can be reached with the right message.

Political cycles are inevitable, but urgent action must be taken right now. Leadership guru John Kotter makes a powerful statement in his new book A Sense of Urgency. He says, “When the urgency challenge is not handled well, even very capable and resource-rich organizations can suffer greatly. When the challenge is handled well, even those who face formidable obstacles can produce results we all want for our careers, employers, and nations.” We conservatives must re-invent and re-package ourselves. This must be done immediately. An integral part of this re-inventing must be recruiting a new field of younger non-traditional candidates rich with women, blacks, and Hispanics. Now it is our turn to create “change you can believe in.”

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

by Star Parker

How can you not feel that emptiness in the pit of your stomach as you watch our financial markets spin downward? The broad stock market indices are down well over 40 percent since the beginning of the year. Losses are somewhere in the neighborhood of $9 trillion.

The real economic realities behind these numbers are starting to show up. The only question at this point is how severe the recession we are now entering will be.

Maybe, when everyone is depressed I am supposed to write cheery things to encourage folks. But I can't, because I care about our country and what I see is not encouraging.

We just had a presidential election that in some circles produced a lot of euphoria. But I believe that at some point — I hope sooner rather than later — many Americans are going to wake up and realize that this election was not a cure for our problems but a symptom of the disease.

I think this is what our crashing financial markets are telling us.

There is a well-known quote from a less well-known philosopher — George Santayana — that those who don't remember history will repeat it.

The failure of communism and socialism is not that far behind us. Yet Americans cannot seem to recall that it happened — and why it happened.

What characterizes these systems? Government control. Central planning. And Godlessness.

Let's consider the sad and pathetic state of our American automobile companies.

As the chairmen of GM, Ford, and Chrysler sat in Washington begging for public money to survive, Honda was celebrating the opening of a new non-union plant in Greensburg, Ind., which will produce 200,000 vehicles annually.

The starting hourly wage at this plant will be $18.41 per hour — about $10 less than at the American companies. There were 33,000 applicants for 900 job openings.

Americans want to work, can work, and can compete with anyone. They just need to be free to do it.

In 1970, GM had 50 percent of the U.S. auto market. Today it has 20 percent. What happened?

The world changed in 1973. We were hit with the oil shock. The oil producing countries' cartel, OPEC, discovered its power, and drove up energy prices.

The power of a free country and free markets is that people, when left alone, will adjust to change and do what they need to do. In fact, that's what happened in businesses that were left alone. Changes and adjustments were made and overall the country is about twice as energy efficient today as it was in 1970.

But in our high profile auto industry that's not what happened. Our politicians, with cooperation from our auto industry executives, decided that the auto companies could not be left to their own resources to adjust to new realities.

First, we enacted import quotas on Japanese cars. Second, we enacted fuel standards to dictate to our car companies what kind of cars to make. And, of course, third, the power of the union was left intact.

Now look where we are. We have a destroyed industry that is the product not of Americans not being able to compete, but of allowing itself to become dependent on government.

This is why our auto companies have failed. This is why communist and socialist countries have failed.

A few days ago Rahm Emanuel, who Barack Obama has picked to be his chief of staff, spoke to a gathering of CEOs at a Wall Street Journal conference in Washington.

He went through the agenda to expect from the Obama administration. He sounded like a commissar from the Soviet Union. Government control and planning in health care, energy, the economy, and financial markets.

Why are our financial markets so pessimistic? They are bracing. The market sees the sad news that Americans have not learned from history. And it looks like we are about to relive its hard lessons.

(Star Parker is president of CURE, Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education (www.urbancure.org) and author of three books. She can be reached at parker@urbancure.org.)

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

 
By Deneen Borelli
 
Barack Obama's election is a capstone on black Americans' struggle for equality.   While isolated racial intolerance can be expected to continue, Obama's electoral landslide and victory in majority-white states such as Iowa and southern states such as Virginia put to rest concerns about a so-called "Bradley effect," in which whites allegedly publicly support - but secretly vote against - black candidates.   President-elect Obama's life story is also a tribute to our nation's greatness and endless opportunity.  In few other nations could a fatherless, racial minority of modest means rise to the most powerful position in the world.
 
There is a misconception, however, about unconditional black support for Obama.
 
It is quite possible to be black and be proud - even excited - about Barack Obama's achievement while opposing him politically.  This black woman, for instance, did not vote for Obama.  Furthermore, I don't believe his policies are sound.
 
I find it unfortunate that Obama's personal keys to success - hard work and perseverance - are tragically absent from the agenda he espouses.  Instead of lauding the virtues of self-reliance and independence, he is pushing massive federal growth and government intrusion.  
 
Collectivism replaces individualism, and government intervention replaces self-preservation.
 
On taxes, we can expect Obama to mandate "economic justice."  His promise of a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans obviously struck a chord during this economic uncertainty, but recent revelations indicate his true beliefs lie in redistributing wealth.
 
The successful will likely be taxed to provide refundable tax "credits" to those with lower incomes. It's wealth redistribution because the 40 percent of Americans who don't pay federal income taxes would be getting the credits.
 
Don't take my word for it.  When Samuel Joseph "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher asked him about it, Obama replied: "It's not that I want to punish your success.  I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too…"  Obama continued: "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody."
 
This thinking does punish success and rewards underachievement.  That's not how our predecessors raised themselves up from bondage, poverty and racism.  Who's going to work harder if the extra benefit is taken away and given to someone who didn't work as hard?  It's no way to set our nation back on a stable economic course.
 
On energy, Obama picks energy winners and losers.  Through an "aggressive" cap-and-trade scheme, he plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by punishing the coal industry and coal-based utilities through taxes on carbon dioxide.  
 
Last January, Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle: "[I]f somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."
 
The problem is that coal provides half of our nation's electricity.  Bankrupting the industry will raise utility bills and make energy less available.  During that same interview, Obama added: "Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…" and power plants "would have to retrofit their operations.  That will cost money.  They will pass that money on to consumers."
 
There are further problems associated with nationalizing health care, taking the secret ballot away in union organizing and new amnesty and benefits for illegal aliens.
 
Although it's amazing that a black was elected President, it's ironic that Obama's leftist policies are likely to hurt the very people he claims to want to help.  
 
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - "unalienable rights" cited by our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence - can only be achieved through personal responsibility and self-reliance.    
 
Unfortunately, the "We" in Obama's "Yes We Can!" literally means collectivism and a statist government that stifles our liberties.
 
I'd rather endorse a "Yes I Can!" philosophy.  I think those who came before me would agree.
 
 
#  #  #
 
 
Deneen Borelli is a fellow for the Project 21 black leadership network.  Comments may be sent to DBorelli@nationalcenter.org.
 

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

by Harry Jackson, Jr.

Last Friday night I experienced the realization of one of my “bucket list” targets. I have always wanted to be a guest on Larry King’s renowned program. Joy Behar led the evening discussion instead of the bespectacled, suspender-wearing, television and radio icon. The subject matter: California’s Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment designed to protect marriage.

The gay marriage activists interviewed on the program used their time to minimize the crushing defeat they received once again at the hands of the people of the nation. Fortunately, the California victory for pro-traditional marriage reversed the decision of a vigilante court that had undone the previous popular vote of an entire state. This decision marks the end of an era and the end of a way of thinking about gay marriage.  This election demonstrates the final defeat of the inane argument that gay marriage is an extension of the civil rights movement.

On Tuesday November 4, the nation was shocked that all three marriage amendments on the ballot in Arizona, California, and Florida passed. Polls and pundits alike were betting on the gay community and their massive ground game to defeat social conservatives’ efforts to protect marriage.   

A second major surprise was that the marriage amendments won because of the moral stance of black voters.  Exit polls confirmed that blacks all over the country voted overwhelming for the marriage amendment.  Surprisingly, 71% of blacks in Florida and 69% of blacks in California voted in favor of establishing constitutional bans on gay marriage.  In both Florida and California the black vote largely determined the outcome of the contests.

The entire week after the election, scores of gay friendly bloggers, writers, and pundits vehemently expressed their outrage. The Internet and other media buzzed with vitriolic anti-black rhetoric. Amazingly, gay opinion leaders accused blacks of betrayal, ignorance, and hate mongering. Roseanne Barr, a world famous “intellectual,” made the following statement: “…they went out of their way to misuse their votes (no doubt at the behest of the immoral and hateful pastors and clergy) to isolate and punish a small minority of citizens, and to deny them basic civil rights.”

Wayne Beson of the Huffington Post made this condescending comment, “Uneducated people—black, white, and Hispanic—often derive their power from physical strength. They perceive gay as weak and antithetical to real manhood…uneducated people…react to the environment round them, which often rewards homophobia.”

Adding insult to injury, Geoffrey a black gay student at UCLA, joined a massive protest outside the Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in Westwood. As he was marching with his “brothers,” folks in the crowd turned on him calling him the n-word twice. Here is his account which was posted in Rod 2.0:Beta and other gay blogs:

“It was like being at a Klan rally except the Klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks…. A young WeHo clone said after last night ‘the n…s better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was best for them’. ”

Another black protesting for gay rights, Ronald, claimed that three older white men shouted, “Black people did this, I hope you people are happy!” Black gays are suddenly aware that there are some real racial tensions within their movement.

Jasmyne Cannick, a black lesbian writer for the Los Angeles Times, reported that many white gays were simply hurling expletives at every black person they saw at their protest rallies. In her view, black gays had bigger fish to fry than the issue of marriage.

Cannick’s analysis on Proposition 8 in California was clear and penetrating. She said, “Because I don't see why the right to marry should be a priority for me or other black people. Gay marriage? Please. At a time when blacks are still more likely than whites to be pulled over for no reason, more likely to be unemployed than whites, more likely to live at or below the poverty line, I was too busy trying to get black people registered to vote, period; I wasn't about to focus my attention on what couldn't help but feel like a secondary issue.”

As I completed the Larry King interview, I awakened to the fact that we are going to see more national violence and vindictive behavior by a mobilized gay community that has picked up an entitlement mentality. Their violence and rudeness will be tolerated by those that view gays as victims of a gender biased culture that must be reformed.

Dan Savage, also a guest on Friday’s program, summarized the change in gay political engagement by saying, “No more Mr. Nice Gay.” This phrase was cute, but carries a threat of more violence and name calling. Churches are being vandalized in California, pastors have received death threats, and there is a general sense that gays will now try to intimidate those they cannot woo.  Although the 80 demonstrations for gay rights conducted this past Saturday were peaceful, don’t expect this front to remain calm, cool, or collected!

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

For Release: November 17, 2008
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or DAlmasi@nationalcenter.org
 
 
Washington, D.C. - After a federal judge last week refused to reduce the sentences of incarcerated U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, Mychal Massie - chairman of the Project 21 black leadership network - is calling on President George W. Bush to use his executive power to commute the agents' sentences before he leaves office in January.
 
Massie said: "At this juncture, whatever penance demanded from Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean pursuant to their actions has been met.  Now is the time for President Bush to show mercy and allow these men to rejoin their families and restart their lives."
 
Ramos and Compean - incarcerated since January of 2007 - are serving jail sentences of 11 and 12 years, respectively.  Most of their time thus far has been served in solitary confinement. Massie and Project 21 has repeatedly asked President Bush for leniency to show Ramos and Compean.
 
Ramos and Compean were prosecuted for an incident that occurred in February of 2005 on the U.S.-Mexico border near El Paso, Texas.  They chased Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila on foot after he abandoned a van containing 743 pounds of marijuana worth an estimated $1 million. During the chase, Ramos shot at Aldrete-Davila after Ramos thought he saw Aldrete-Davila draw a gun. Aldrete-Davila escaped across the U.S.-Mexico border, and Ramos assumed Aldrete-Davila was unhurt.  In fact, Aldrete-Davila had been shot in the buttock.  U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton later charged Ramos and Compean for pursuing Aldrete-Davila without supervisor approval, moving spent shell casings and improperly reporting the fired shots.
 
Aldrete-Davila was granted immunity to testify against Ramos and Compean.  He recently plead guilty to charges that he conspired to smuggle marijuana into the United States twice after he was granted immunity and faces a jail term of between five and 40 years and $2 million in fines (although The Washington Times cited a source who claims Aldrete-Davila may only serve six to 10 years in exchange for his plea).
 
Regarding the dwindling avenues of relief for the agents, T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council union, said, "The best hope for these agents remains commutation from either the outgoing to the incoming president." Claudia Compean is similarly asking for the agents' sentences to be shortened.
 
Massie added:
 
It is an egregious act of misapplied justice to continue to incarcerate these two men.  They are not thugs or gangsters.  They have spent nearly two years in jail. Their lives are ruined and their careers are ruined.  While in jail, they have been assaulted and now must spend 23 hours a day in agonizing solitary confinement.  Their families have been threatened.  What more need be done to these men and their families?  
 
Herein lies the unintended consequences of overzealous politicians and prosecutors pursuant to mandatory sentencing guidelines.  It is a sad day when crack dealers, drug smugglers, illegal alien criminals and pedophiles are afforded more lenience than these men.  
 
If President Bush cannot show mercy in light of these facts, may God have mercy on the soul of America.
 
Project 21's Massie wrote about the Ramos and Compean case in a commentary published in The Washington Times on December 28, 2007.  This commentary is available at http://tiny.cc/MassieRamosCompean .
 
Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992.  For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21's website at http://www.project21.org/P21Index.html.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

by Star Parker

I retrieve and open a large envelope from today's pile of mail.

Inside is a press release announcing "Chik-fil-A Founder to Receive 2008 William E. Simon Prize for Philanthropic Leadership."

I discover that Chik-fil-A founder is 87-year-old Atlanta businessman S. Truett Cathy. Reading about Cathy, amidst today's headlines, I am wondering if his story is what America is about, or was about.

Cathy built, and today is owner/operator, of the privately held Chik-fil-A fast food chain, with more than 1400 locations and sales of over $2.6 billion dollars. He's from humble roots in rural Georgia and opened the first Chik-fil-A store in Atlanta in 1967.

In contrast to stereotypes equating business, particularly big business, to greed, Cathy's life and work has been defined by service and Christian charity. The corporate mission statement of Chik-fil-A is "To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us. To have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chik-fil-A."

Chil-fil-A stores are closed on Sunday to allow employees to devote the day to faith and family.

Cathy established a scholarship fund in 1973 for Chik-fil-A employees and to date around 23,000 have received more than $24 million in scholarship funds. In 1984 he established the WinShape Foundation which last year alone spent $18 million supporting a network of foster homes, camps, scholarships, and marriage counseling programs.

The Simon Prize, which Cathy has just received, is awarded by the William E. Simon Foundation, established by Simon, who was the 63rd Treasury Secretary of the United States.

Like Cathy, Simon believed in America, in freedom and free enterprise, and was a man of faith. The giving themes of his foundation, as noted on the foundation's website, are in the areas of "education, faith, and family."

Unlike Cathy, Simon built his wealth in the area which is now quintessentially associated with greed — finance. Before becoming Treasury Secretary in 1974, he was a Wall Street bond trader at Salomon Brothers. After, he set up firms dealing in mergers and acquisitions, financial services, and banking.

As Wall Street executives are dragged to hearings, to be mocked, blamed, and threatened by Democratic Banking Chairman Chris Dodd, it's worth quoting Simon, who passed away in 2000, as his creed appears on his foundation's website:

"The free enterprise system has blessed the United States of America with the greatest prosperity, the highest standards of living, and, most important, the greatest individual freedom known to man. If we can preserve this system, and our freedom, we can look forward to turning over to our children, and our children's children, an America that is more productive, prosperous, and stronger economically, financially, morally, and spiritually, than the one we inherited."

How, from this, did we become a nation of blame, bailouts, and entitlement?

Wal-Mart has just released its quarterly report showing sales and earnings up 7.5 percent and 9.8 percent respectively. Wal-Mart, founded and built by one of America's great entrepreneurs, has been under endless attack from the political left. Now, in tough times, Americans are happy to have a source of low priced, high quality merchandise.

Average nationwide retail gasoline prices this week are $1.95 less a gallon compared to July — a drop of almost 50 percent. In a Gallup poll done last year, most Americans attributed high gasoline prices to oil company greed. Are they going down now because oil companies are becoming generous?

No doubt, these are hard times.

Here's my prediction. The more Americans believe that our future depends on politicians, political fixes, and bailouts, the bleaker our future will be.

If we see America as a country defined by men like S. Truett Cathy, Bill Simon, and Sam Walton, we'll re-establish firm footing on American principles and re-build our country, our prosperity, and our leadership.

(Star Parker is an author and president of CURE, Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education. She can be reached at parker@urbancure.org.)

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
1 Comment »

By Bishop Council Nedd II

As the nation waits with great anticipation for President-Elect Barack Obama to begin unveiling his policies for rescuing our economy and managing our two wars, the real indicator of his presidential success may be how well he handles his most ardent supporters.

While Americans may have voted for “change,” the Pandora’s Box of extreme political interests supporting Obama’s candidacy could end up shocking many of his supporters.

In 2004, Eli Pariser of the leftist MoveOn.org said of the Democratic Party: “Now it’s our party.  We bought it, we own it and we’re going to take it back.”  Obama’s rise to power exemplifies MoveOn’s agenda.  With his successful campaign concluded, the hard-left no longer needs to remain inconspicuous.  It undoubtedly now expects its share of the electoral spoils.

Extremists held their tongues as Obama appealed to people of faith.  They restrained themselves as the Democratic National Convention opened for the first time with an inter-faith service.  They remained calm when the nominee announced his interest in keeping parts of President Bush’s faith-based initiative.

Those wanting to regulate the influence of religion in American public life still overwhelmingly backed Obama.  Since enforcing the mythical mandate of “separation of church and state” is a cornerstone of the liberal agenda, it is sure to be something President Obama will be compelled to address.

Just before Election Day, the anti-faith Freedom from Religion Foundation filed a federal lawsuit aimed at declaring the National Day of Prayer (the first Thursday of May) as unconstitutional because it “create[s] a hostile environment for nonbelievers who are made to feel as if they are political outsiders.”

Considering that judges have already found reasons to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance and remove reproductions of the Ten Commandments from courthouses, it isn’t hard to imagine the National Day of Prayer being declared illegal.  If this happens, will Obama fight for prayer?  Will he oppose some of his most loyal supporters and appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court?  Will he press his colleagues on Capitol Hill to pass legislation to protect the National Day of Prayer?

I highly doubt it.

“Under God” is still in the Pledge, but only because the Supreme Court threw out the case on a legal technicality.  The next time - be it the validity of the Pledge, our “In God We Trust” motto or the National Day of Prayer - could be very different. President Obama’s appointments to the bench can be expected to practice the judicial activism that tears down our nation’s religious traditions.

Beyond the courts, liberal advocacy groups want the government to crack down on expressions of faith in the public square.

The American Civil Liberties Union, for instance, has an ambitious post-election agenda specifically calling on Obama to broaden the powers of the Department of Justice’s Special Counsel for Religious Discrimination.  Established in the Bush Administration to ensure civil rights protections address religious discrimination, the ACLU wants it to investigate suspected violations of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause “to help ensure that the government does not promote, endorse or favor any religious practice or belief.”

It’s not hard to imagine government investigators harassing local town councils for opening meetings with a prayer under this new regime.

And that faith-based initiative Obama supported?  The ACLU wants strict regulations and monitoring of groups getting government funds.  This includes the possibility of forcing groups to compromise the principles of their faith to participate.

Such visions terrify many Americans of faith.  I cannot count how many times since the elections that a colleague, friend or parishioner expressed anxiety over what could happen to their religious freedom if Obama’s most militant supporters have their way.

Barack Obama promised us change, not a revolution in the way Americans are allowed to express their faith.  That, however, may very well be what we get.  This change may eventually be what people remember the most - and not in a good way - about the Obama era.

#  #  #

Project 21 member Council Nedd II, the bishop of the Chesapeake and the Northeast for the Episcopal Missionary Church, is the honorary chairman of In God We Trust (http://www.ingodwetrustusa .org) - a group formed to oppose anti-religious bigotry.  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, E-Mail Project21@nationalcenter.org,

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
1 Comment »

by Armstrong Williams

Bruises are still tender from the Democrat drubbing Republicans took on Election Day.  The bad news is there’s plenty more where that came from, only this time from within.  Less than 12 hours following the California returns, congressional and party leaders huddled separately in basements and on impromptu conference calls and began plotting a way out of this deep, yawning ditch they’ve managed to drive the party bus into.  Perhaps there was less plotting and more commiserating.

There’s no question the Grand Old Party is now wandering in the wilderness.  But unlike the scores of conservative soothsayers who will want to look over their collective shoulder and blame the McCain campaign or the political arms of the party such as the RNC, I will not.  The party’s problems run deeper and wider than that.

John McCain had nothing to do with this nosedive.  The party was headed in that direction long before he came on the scene to run for president.  I do believe, however, that a McCain administration would have continued many of the behaviors that contributed to the predicament they find themselves in.  Fifty percent of Americans felt the same way; and they said as much when they told exit pollsters on Election night that they believed McCain would continue the policies of President Bush.

For the good of the country, we need a Republican Renaissance – a re-birth of ideas, people and plans to address the changing needs of everyday Americans.  Now, I’m not going to pretend to offer specific policy proposals.  Frankly, they promise only to treat the symptoms of something larger that is wrong with the party.  Judging by what happened in the wake of 2006, Republicans didn’t learn anything.  No, what needs to begin today is a fresh perspective that folds in the challenges of living in this country, the concerns, the fears for one’s safety, and the hopes of a better life as well.

Those words may seem like amorphous, lofty platitudes.  Republicans may counter, “How does a party establish policy positions based on that?”  That’s exactly the problem!!  Republicans have spent too much time focused on the content of bills and laws, and not enough on those it would impact and affect.  How can voters ever begin to identify with a political party that doesn’t first identify with them?

More than ever, this new perspective holds a calling for conservatives as well.  We know “Republican” and “conservative” are not synonymous terms.  I respect that; always will.  But this new calling goes beyond simply defending a neatly-designed construct such as the “values voter.”  That person does not exist as we knew him/her five years ago.

We are supposedly experts in what conservatism truly means.  Less Government.  Personal responsibility and accountability.  Rugged individualism where a person should rise and fall on their own merit.  Faithfulness to God our father and our earthy brother’s and sisters.  In the latter we must have a better and more tolerant understanding and relationship with everyday human beings and the constant and demanding issues they struggle against.

Here’s what conservatism doesn’t mean.  Brace yourself, because I’m about to commit what some liken to political heresy.  Conservatism of the future cannot keep appealing to the past for its ideas and vision.  Ronald Reagan was a great president, in the top celestial echelons of history.  Yet I’m not convinced Ronald Reagan would be the same president today that he was nearly three decades ago.  The world has changed, our economy has changed, and even our people have changed.  Yes, the Reagan principles of limited government, individualism, and even his monetarist views of a strong dollar are still viable, but folks, we need a new standard bearer.

To appeal to a man who served in the White House before many voters this year were even born is nostalgic at best and political folly at worst.  It’s also a poorly-constructed crutch that serves to dampen the creative juices in the Republican ranks.  I refuse to believe that no Republican has developed an innovative public policy idea that he couldn’t directly tie back to the Reagan administration.  In fact, I know they have.  Look at George Allen and his parole abolition reforms while governor of Virginia .  At a time in the early 90s when crime was rampant and apologists wrung their hands, Governor Allen took a bold step, put his political neck on the line, and enacted truth-in-sentencing laws.  He didn’t have to invoke the Republican pantheon to get credit (or even permission) for that move.  He simply did the right thing.

For the past few years, however, the Republican idea factory has shuttered its doors.

A new direction for the Republican Party also means trusting your base will remain loyal.  Pollsters.

Noticed how I have not mentioned that other party, the Democratic Party.  They’re irrelevant to this conversation, and that, too, has been the Republican Party.  They got too good and grew too comfortable in defining success for American families by defeating the other party.  I can’t count how many times I heard Republicans say, “If they’re losing, then we’re winning.”  That’s a great strategy if you’re fighting Philistines in the 12^th Century B.C., but it won’t work today.

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 by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

by Gene Borgo

The Fill in the blank Candidate

MAINSTREET USA - On November 4th a majority of Americans elected a man who promised “Hope” and “Change”. A charismatic silver tongued orator, who spoke of these attributes with a vagueness that allowed the eager listener to “fill in the blanks” whenever these words were spoken. By design, carefully worded speeches weighted with platitudes were meant to say pretty much whatever the listener wanted them to say; the listener by default merely “filled in the blanks”. This explains the vast differences and mostly shallow responses that came from the man on the street who heard any one of his speeches. Hope and change meant as many different things as there were as many willing listeners facing him. Fifty thousand listeners, fifty thousand different ideas of hope and change; The Music Man of all salesmen.

Does anyone really know what “he” himself meant by hope and change? We dare say not. Only glimpses of what he might have meant were only reported by a minority of the media, that is; the alternative media on talk radio and the internet. Much of what these media outlets exposed by either replaying video or audio bites of the candidate or of his close associates at earlier times or at more unguarded moments made many of us very uneasy to say the least. But exactly how many American voters heard and saw what we experienced from our alternate media sources? Maybe twenty percent of the public? Very few, as compared to those exposed to the daily barrage of the main stream media of which, obviously decided to ignore any of these easily researched evidences of what this candidate really may stand for. The main stream media only became an extension of his campaign machine. Not only was the opposition outspent five times over in campaign contributions to spend on ads and yard signs, but if the sum total of the value of what the main stream media’s consistent upbeat reporting was given a price tag, even Bill Gates couldn’t afford it.

Now all is history. The dust is settling. This man will now be President of the United States of America. While a candidate, he was really never pinned down to his exact meanings of hope and change. So we have to ask; what will “he” himself fill in the blanks with? Your guess is as good as any. We essentially wrote this man a blank check that he gets to fill in with what ever he desires, which can take this nation on a course of totally uncharted waters yet to be determined. Those of us who dared look into this man’s past associations swallow hard at the thought of him at the helm.
Getting back to our Roots; Liberty and Freedom
The New Rally Cry …Again

Now as a defeated scattered army whose generals were captured or fallen, we look and grasp for direction…any direction.  Much has been said about rebuilding the Conservative movement from the ground up, even like was done in the Reagan years, but this strategy may be too little; too late at this urgent time. Maybe even the wrong methodology for this dilemma.

During the Reagan era our battles were of a different nature. We basically struggled for moral or Conservative values here in the homeland and pushed for Liberty and Freedom in the Soviet Block nations and elsewhere around the world.

With much sadness we have to admit that; we now may be entering very perilous times, and may soon be at risk of losing here in the homeland what we wished to spread worldwide just a couple decades before; Liberty and Freedom. Though we still need to pursue the virtues of Conservatism (morals) they will mean little to nothing if we loose our Liberty and Freedom to do so.

Just what is Conservatism? Is it merely a code word that conservatives use amongst ourselves because we all seem to know what is meant by it? Or what we think is meant by it? Over the years this tortured word has taken on almost as many meanings as hope and change has now. To many of us it can hold the meaning of “moral restraint”. To many others it has some very negative connotations; to African Americans it means; “going back to the way it was”. What’s so good about the way it was for them? To still others it means; “the reluctance to change”. Sounds boring and stuck up. These latter definitions do no justice to its true intent or what is being conserved or restrained. That is a radical idea, a very radical idea indeed: Freedom derived from Liberty, restrained by Morality, based on God’s Law. Far from boring, it’s outstanding, irreplaceable by any thing else. Consider the alternatives.

Why so radical? Because of three very simple words; “We the People”, not; we the masters or kings, or intellectuals, or we the privileged or powerful. But; “We the People”. For over two hundred years these three simple words have held us together through good times, bad times, hard times, even a war time that brought us together out of a slave time. The Framers of this great nation knew this was a radical experiment that could only be ordained and directed by God Himself, that is why they so heavily leaned on His direction and blessing.

In looking for a new direction for those of us of like mind, we need to look back further than the Reagan years, all the way back to the very earliest years of the founding of these United States of America.

The rally cry then was, as it needs to be again; Liberty and Freedom. Liberty from tyrants. Liberty that allows us to have Freedom. Freedom to pursue happiness and God’s Laws (morals) or may we say; Conservatism.

While there is still time, as we gather, as we speak out; “Liberty and Freedom” must be loudly and often proclaimed, from the housetops of talk radio, from the printed page, the internet and on the Floors of the House and Senate. Because this is again what is at stake. If we still only blow the horn for Conservatism and neglect the more fundamental coming battles for Liberty and Freedom we will consistently show up on the wrong battle fields and loose the whole war.

Though very few new recruits will rally behind an often misunderstood banner of Conservatism, most will and must rally behind the banner of Liberty and Freedom.
All nationalities, all creeds, from all political sides in our nation, must join in to preserve our Liberty and Freedom. If they don’t, nothing else will matter. We will all loose, all loose greatly. There exists no other place in the world like ours, and there is no New World to flee to from tyrants as our forefathers were able to.

Once lost, what was paid for by the price of blood will never be regained without the same.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »