It never ceases to amaze and disappoint me just how easily Christians in America can ignore the divine wisdom of the Holy Bible - the supposed source of their core values and beliefs - especially as it concerns the important decisions of our nation.
This is a problem, and if we don’t repent we’re going to be in serious trouble. Perhaps we already are.
Many evangelicals in America are convinced that fragmenting our faith from our politics (the science of ordering our lives) is threatening the very soul of our nation and plunging us rapidly down the slippery slope of moral relativism that will cause America to become unrecognizable and indistinguishable from any other nation. Turning our backs to our faith, some would contend, will without question signal the end of American exceptional-ism in the world.
Christian philosopher and author Francis Schaeffer spoke to this well in his 1981 Christian Manifesto when he stated; “the basic problem of the Christians in this country in the last eighty years or so, in regard to society and in regard to government, is that they have seen things in bits and pieces instead of totals.”
I cannot think of a more vivid example of this than what manifested itself during the mass hysteria that passed for a presidential campaign in 2008.
It was during that populist political uprising in America that millions of people decided that they could be Christians in the church without necessarily being so in the voting booth. All over the nation Christians packed into churches each Sunday to enthusiastically pledge their allegiance to Jesus and His values; but then almost immediately dismissed those values from being important in determining who we should empowered to be our leaders.
This has placed their credibility and claims of being transformed and enlightened people in serious jeopardy and has caused them to become unrecognizable as Christians and indistinguishable from any other segment of our society.
Allow me to use a scripture to explain where I’m coming from.
The Bible instructs Christians to “Test everything. Hold on to the good.” 1 Thess. 5:21
This isn’t deep Bible doctrine and shouldn’t require any significant expositional commentary; but allow me to offer one, nevertheless.
This is a warning for Christians to be wise and requires that we not buy into anyone or anything based exclusively on the way it appears on the surface. The Bible is saying that it is essential that we examine everything and everyone against some objective measure to ensure that things line up with our core values and beliefs before we lay claim to them and endorse them for others. The objective measure for us would be the Bible. Would you agree?
Assuming that Christians would reject that which is evil and embrace that which is good according to our values; wisdom requires that we dig deeply to examine exactly where a person is coming from in their prophetic proclamations and promises to us before we offer them our allegiance and authority to lead and or influence us.
Unfortunately, millions of Christians did not exercise Biblical wisdom during the epic swoon over the darling Barack Obama and his family, and were no different than all the others who made him their choice while under his charismatic influence. Most of us simply bought into the inspirational sell pitches - hook, line, and sinker - and were completely satisfied to ignore all of the tell tale signs that indicated him to be exactly what many people suspected him to be – antithetical to Christian values.
President Obama, without question is a Pro-abortion president. He is not pro-choice; he is pro-abortion and has never tried to hide that fact. For those to whom this was important during the campaign, it comes as no surprise that one of his very first acts in office as our president was to repeal the ban on federal funds being used for foreign abortions. Simply put, American tax dollars will now be used to pay for women in Mexico, Somalia, and other nations to have abortions against the ethical opposition of millions of taxpayers who find that morally objectionable.
He is also repealing President Bush’s courageous policy of prohibiting federal funds from scientific research that employs the use of embryonic stem cells; a practice that bio-ethicists insist is both immoral and unnecessary.
President Obama is also fulfilling the promises made to the gay and lesbian interest groups that supported him, beginning with the repeal of President Bill Clintons “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ policy. This will kick the door wide open for Gays and Lesbians to enlist in the armed forces of the United States and openly practice their lifestyle, an act that many military experts believes will negatively affect the morale of our fighting forces.
This is only the beginning, I’m sure; but it’s no surprise to me.
Fortunately, it also won’t surprise me when people who claim to be Christians will continue to either ignore or try to justify what potentially could become the greatest assault on main stream values ever launched from Washington D.C.
by Ceasar LeFlore III
Ken Blackwell is a giant among men in Republican political circles.
Not only is the former Ohio Secretary of State and Xavier College football star a physically imposing figure, but he also is a person of extreme personal, professional, and political accomplishment.
He has a distinguished record of achievement as a finance executive, entrepreneur, diplomat, educator and independent corporate director. He is one of the nation’s leading conservative voices and a strong advocate for free market enterprise. In 2006, he became the first African-American in Ohio history to be a major party nominee for governor.
Among his many accomplishments in Republican politics is the courageous decision he has made to seek election to the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee.
After the disastrous 2008 elections, where Republicans literally got their clocks cleaned by the Democrats in both state and national elections; one might view Mr. Blackwell’s ambition for headship of the RNC the same as someone seeking to become captain of the Titanic after it hit the iceberg.
Freedom’s Journal Magazine sat down with Mr. Blackwell to hear his heart concerning the state of the Republican Party and to explore his vision of reform (shareholders’ revolt as he calls it) that he would oversee as the next Republican Party Chairman.
FJM: Mr. Blackwell, welcome to Freedom’s Journal Magazine.
You’ve recently made the decision to seek the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee (RNC), which would be ground breaking if you are able to succeed. Can you give our readers a brief assessment of the state of the RNC as you see it, and to borrow a little from the Obama campaign, what hope for change would you offer for the party in the immediate future?
Blackwell: Thank you for the opportunity to share my vision for a unified and principled GOP. I appreciate the attention you and your readers are giving to this important process. It is funny that you mention “hope” and “change” right off the bat. Of all of my worthy competitors for RNC chairman, I believe I am the best qualified to deliver the message that hope and change does not mean much without specific policies that defend our God given individual liberties and support the rule of law.
There is a great deal of dissention in the ranks – a shareholders’ revolt as I call it. Empowerment of the grassroots is the best solution to revitalize the GOP. We must provide our state and local parties with the financial and political resources to cultivate and activate the grassroots supporters who are the backbone of our party. Only when the party’s base is engaged can we truly keep our elected leaders accountable.
FJM: To para-phrase a scripture in the Bible: “Where there is no vision or revelation from heaven, the people wander aimlessly until they perish.”
Your press release stated that you prayed a lot before making the decision to seek the chairmanship of your party. After hearing from heaven, what specific course adjustments do you envision as needed to keep the party from drifting aimlessly during a time of Democratic dominance in Washington D.C.?
Blackwell: Well let me just say that prayer was the most important part of this decision making process, but there has been plenty of hard work to follow! I firmly believe that the only way to bring the Republican Party back is by clearly articulating conservative principles, inspiring our base, decentralizing authority, and building an organization that will pave the way for a conservative resurgence across the country. Not only am I the most experienced candidate in the race, but I have worked directly with grassroots activists across the nation and I know what it takes to put them to work and rebuild our party.
FJM: What measurable outcomes would you look for to decide whether or not your plan is working?
Blackwell: I actually address that in my Conservative Resurgence Plan, which I released last week. In my plan, I outline three major benchmarks that will define success as a party chairman. These are definable goals that will clearly display how my plan works, and how we are growing as a party.
• 50 Strong State Parties equipped with the technical tools and skills necessary to be successful down to precinct-level.
• Increase in the number of Federal Republican Officeholders.
• Adding more Republican Governors and more Republican State Legislators as we prepare for redistricting.
A change in management is not usually in order when an organization is meeting its goals. But when these benchmarks are not met, we need to start making changes to get different outcomes. It’s well known in politics that when a party is winning elections you keep the current leadership, and when a political party is losing elections it’s time to look for new leadership. We’ve reached that time.
FJM: There is another well respected Black candidate for the RNC chairmanship; one Michael Steele, (former Lt. Governor of Maryland and present chairman of GOPAC). What would it mean for the image of the Republican Party if a black man wins the chairmanship and becomes its recognized leader, or is that not important?
What would it say if neither of you manages to win, and is that important?
Blackwell: I think Michael Steele is a good and honorable man and a strong spokesman for our party. But I am not running for RNC Chairman because of my race — I am running because of my principles and my vision, and I believe that I have the most experience and the best plan to activate the base of our party and bring back Republican victories nationwide.
FJM: Do you believe that the Republican Party can ever have wide range appeal to the African American community, again? And if so, what specific strategies do you need to consider that would allow you to connect with them more effectively and make the party a viable option.
Blackwell: Absolutely. Listen, the Democrat Party has done an amazing job of making African Americans feel that they understand their values and struggles better than anyone else. But it’s not true. African Americans believe in strong traditional values that are better represented by the Republican Party. The principles of personal freedom, traditional values, and the rule of law are just as appealing to African Americans as they are to Hispanics or any other group of Americans who want to have a stable job, a good home, quality education, and a safe community.
The Republican Party must do a better job of reaching out to those voters who don’t traditionally side with them, and this message will bring a better version of hope and change for all Americans.
FJM: Who are the new emerging black stars within the Republican Party that we should be looking out for? Is there an African - American who could be taken seriously as a contender for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, or challenge for important seats in the House and Senate?
Blackwell: Many of the finest African-Americans in politics aren’t just elected officials, but conservative intellectuals who help frame the debate. But one of the problems we have is looking nationally for that leadership, when we need to be building a farm team on the local level. Barack Obama started as a community organizer, not a U.S. Senator, and right now we don’t have any black Republicans in the House or the Senate. I think focusing on recruiting smart and young African American candidates at the state and local level is just as important as running at the federal level.
FJM: One of the most significant promises that attracted people to Barack Obama was his claim to be able to reach across party lines and find consensus with Republicans on important issues. It often seems that for many Democrats the only legitimate consensus is when Republicans give in and come over to agree with them.
How will the RNC establish the delicate balance of remaining faithful to the core values of it’s constituents on major issues like taxes, abortion, and healthcare without seeming to be maliciously contrary to a liberal black president, which perhaps would lead to more charges of racism against our party?
Blackwell: The Republican Party needs to not only activate our base, but expand it, and the best way to do that is to offer better solutions that appeal to the American spirit. We’re not out here to demonize Obama – we’re here to let everyone know there is a political philosophy that will offer better results for all Americans. For instance, school choice is an issue that Republicans have been forwarding for decades, and I know because I have been involved in the movement from the beginning. Empowering individuals to make their own choices will economically benefit the black community as well as all communities, and provide better opportunities for education, health care and personal growth.
FJM: Understanding that we live in a time of labeling, how do you identify yourself within the big tent of the RNC? Are you a conservative, or moderate, or maybe even blue blood country club type?
Blackwell: I am definitely a conservative on all counts – social, fiscal and national security.
FJM: Can you talk about how you came to those convictions?
Blackwell: Actually, I used to be an Independent back in Cincinnati in the 1970s when I first entered politics. It was Jack Kemp, who I met in an NFL alumni association (he played for 13 years, I played for about 13 minutes), who I first talked to about spurring economic development in inner cities. He liked my ideas and my personal story and later introduced me to President Ronald Reagan (who also started with another political party) and I knew I had found the right principles and the right party for me.
FJM: Former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman has recently insinuated that the decline of the Republican Party can be laid at the feet of the social or Christian conservative influence within the party. First of all, do you agree with her? And secondly, will social conservatism always have a home in the Republican Party?
Blackwell: It’s unfortunate that some Republicans want to base their victories on subtraction and division, when politics is a game of addition and multiplication. What most people don’t realize is that few people fall into one category of conservatism.
Typically, social conservatives are also opposed to increased government spending and our current, immoral tax code. And practically all conservatives agree that a strong national defense is necessary for the protection of our freedoms. It’s that delicate balance of fiscal, social, and defense conservatives that unite the coalition that is the base of the Republican Party, and without all three, we will find ourselves rapidly shrinking.
FJM: The economy is obviously in very real trouble and apparently getting worse by the day. It’s also happening at the end of a Republican administration in the White House. From your perspective, what went wrong as it concerns Republican oversight of the economy? Was it failed policies, or simply a flawed economic philosophy that emerged from within the Bush administration.
Blackwell: I think there were many factors involved in the current economic situation and you can’t pin them on the president, but he does share some of the blame. Reckless spending, especially in these final months of the Bush Administration, are opening up the door to big government activism and even more spending in an Obama administration.
At the same time I do believe in the power of free markets, and for too long our financial institutions had been taking orders from the government and covering up a severe sickness that would come to infect us all. Financial growth all comes down to letting the market do its job, and when people aren’t sending half their paychecks and control of their spending to the government, they’re more likely to invest in their future and grow the economy.
FJM: Joe the plumber, who is from your state and became an icon of the McCain / Palin campaign, has recently come out saying that he was appalled at Senator McCain for voting for the 700 billion dollar Wall Street bailout. Do you believe Republican support for the bailout, including that of our presidential nominee, was a mistake?
Blackwell: Absolutely. After all, what is the point of having principles in the first place if you abandon them for the polls?
FJM: What role, if any do you think is appropriate for the federal government to assume in creating and maintaining a robust economy that includes job creation?
Blackwell: The only role the government should have is to serve as a referee of sorts — get off the field, let us play ball, and throw the flag if someone is breaking the rules. American ingenuity is second to none, and given the opportunity to start or invest in a business, we will take the path toward success. I also think that fundamental tax reform (I support the flat tax, but anything is better than what we have right now) is the first step toward expanding our economy and evening out the rules.
FJM: If the Lord blesses you to win in January, and I’m praying that you will, what would be your overriding message to your party constituents, and how could resource like Freedom’s Journal Magazine assist you in conveying that message?
Blackwell: Oh, thank you, we’re working day-in and day-out on this race and your prayers and the opportunity to share my vision are appreciated more than I can express here. And you know that Freedom’s Journal Magazine will have a place at the table when it comes to delivering our message of conservative resurgence for the Republican Party.
Originally published in the Jan-Feb 09 issue of Freedom’s Journal Magazine
By Armstrong Williams
President Obama’s hand that was raised to take the historical oath of office came down hard on lobbyists during his first full hours in the Oval Office. Facing a limping economy, the newly-installed Commander in Chief froze senior staffers pay and executed stricter restraints on relationships between federal lobbyists and his administration in an ode to public service’s original objectives. Those are admirable moves and send the right message that he’s ready to lead by example. However, even though this is the right message, is it really form over substance? Most Americans would agree that there are more pressing issues concerning the economy and national defense that should be addressed first.
Intending to stop lobbyists from utilizing public service to climb the corporate ladder, President Obama restricted his new White House staffers from working with issues they had previously lobbied for, as well as curb individuals from interacting with the Obama administration if they leave the White House and return to the advocacy world. But let’s take this to its next logical level.
Who best understands the oil industry, the media industry and the securities industry? An academic who studies the industry or a well regarded successful industry participant? An academic may be very knowledgeable about an industry but his experience of the industry is usually vicarious, and his views are primarily scrutinized by academics in esoteric academic journals. If he is wrong, he is criticized by his peers. (He cannot lose his job because he probably has tenure.) An industry participant on the other hand has his views scrutinized by the market place. If he is wrong, he loses his job or a lot of money.
Conflict of interest rules which discourage well regarded successful industry participants from becoming part of the government do a disservice to this country. It means the people who know the most about how the industry really works and who know the key participants in the industry will not be working for the government.
Conflict of interest rules that prohibit people leaving government service from participating in the industries they regulate discourage smart young people from joining government service. It does not give them the opportunity to invest in their early careers by taking low paying government jobs and then leveraging that experience to get well paying private sector jobs in the industry they know the best.
Conflict of interest rules that prohibit or restrict lobbyists with extensive knowledge about their client’s industry from having direct access to government decision makers makes the transfer of knowledge to the government inefficient and cumbersome at best. In our judicial system, we recognize that having legal counsel representing both sides of a dispute tends to result in all the relevant issues being presented before the judge and jury. Shouldn’t the politicians, regulators and bureaucrats have the same benefit of hearing all sides of an issue when trying to legislate, regulate and administer?
Conflict of interest is a concept with a large gray area between what is right and wrong. There are obvious conflicts of interest such as offering and accepting bribes which nobody condones. (Unless you happen to operate in certain third world economies where bribery is the custom.) However, a lobbyist picking up a lunch tab where he is discussing the=2 0dynamics of an industry and the fate of certain regulations with politicians, regulators or bureaucrats is in this gray area. I would suspect (or should I say hope) that most of our government servants would not have their judgments impaired by a $50 lunch.
While placing fetters on lobbyists looks good in the papers, the growing industry cannot simply be expunged with a signature. As the government inflates – an action seemingly propelled with the new administration’s agenda – lobbyists’ role in public policy promises only to continue to increase, not diminish neither in size nor power.
Take the economic stimulus for instance. The billions of dollars available offer plenty of opportunities to fill the hands of those in need. As a result, companies and groups hire their own advocates to extend a hand for their cause, offering valid arguments about their clients’ need for a serving of the economic recovery porridge.
The yawning growth of the State helped turn lobbying into the $2.4 billion industry we know today. If President Obama would like to truly rein in special interest influence, his administration might want to focus on the root causes of their viral ways by putting pressure on the reduction of the government leviathan.
This is not to say that conflict of interest rules and restrictions which apply to lobbyists, politicians and public servants are unnecessary. But should these rules and restrictions be an early priority of the Obama administration where we have more pressing issues? The problems with our nation’s economy and government today are not the result of abuses of conflict of interest rules that have to be corrected. We should not throw up the smoke screen of solving minor conflicts of interest issues when we have major substantive issues to solve. Let’s deal with the nation’s substantive issues first.
“The Armstrong Williams Show” is broadcast daily on XM Satellite Power 169 from 9:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
By Herman Cain
There is no doubt that President Obama is one of the most gifted inspirational speakers on the planet. And in politics, his inspirational speaking abilities have helped to propel him to the presidency.
The president can lead a nation in the right direction or the wrong direction. That direction starts with general themes expressed to Congress and the public, which signify the type of specific proposals or programs he would support.
When we get past the historical significance of President Obama’s political victory, and we get past the rightly deserved celebrations, there are some themes spoken by now-President Obama that are beginning to cause me great concern for the future of our country.
When he was presidential candidate Obama, these themes were caution lights. As President Obama, they are red lights, because when the president speaks people listen and take their cues from what he says.
In my December 29, 2008 column, I pointed out what I considered to be Obama’s big mistake when he stated on Meet the Press that “deficits don’t matter” even before he took office. That sent a signal to Congress, and now the Senate has authorized the remaining $350 billion in TARP economic “stimulus” spending.
I do not believe that was coincidental or accidental.
My article last week highlighted the significance of spending another $350 billion of our money without a clear line of sight on how it would actually stimulate the economy. That fiscal warning light got lost in presidential inauguration anticipation, Senate seat political drama and an airplane landing safely, thankfully, on the Hudson River.
President Obama sent another “spending does not matter” signal in his inaugural speech last Tuesday: “The question is not whether government is too big or too small, the question is whether government works.”
Red light! Here we go again.
The first part of the statement is another version of “open up the public’s checkbook again” for when he asks Congress for another $500 billion for “infrastructure stimulus” projects. The question as to “whether government works” has been answered many times in many ways for those of us who are not in denial.
The answer is yes our military works, and our intelligence agencies are working better than ever. But government’s ability to control spending and keep taxes low does not work. So much so, that we are headed for a bankrupt America.
We know what to do about The Coming Tsunami of a Bankrupt America, but the leadership in Congress is in denial, incapable of leading or both.
And now, President Obama is sending the wrong signal again.
President Barack Obama is a refreshing inspirational political speaker, but we need a refreshing inspirational leader sending the right signals.
© 2009 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.
Rev. Wayne Perryman
Two Questions
Perhaps someone can help me with a couple of questions:
1. President Obama signed an Executive Order providing $460 million for overseas abortions. Instead of giving money to kill babies overseas, how could the black community use that money?
I know that many black pastors are struggling trying find funds to build their churches so they can provide more services in the black community. I know that the $460 million that Obama is sending overseas to kill babies, include the tax dollars of members who belong to black congregations. I know that we talked about affordable health care, particularly in the inner-city and that $460 million could have built some community health care clinics. I know that very few black ministers wrote Obama and protested the signing of the Executive Order nor did they suggest to him how this money could have been better utilized. I also know, that I can find no scripture in the Bible that instructs the church and its members to use any of its money to fund programs that are specifically designed to kill babies (Jeremiah 32:35 and Matthew 2:16-18).
2. A portion of President Obama’s $860 billion Stimulus Program to improve our economy is based on creating jobs by building roads and bridges. When has our nation’s economy been based on building roads and bridges?
I know that the banks that laid off thousands of persons do not base their business on how many roads and bridges are built. I know that Starbucks and Microsoft’s businesses are not based on how many roads and bridges are built. I know that Boeing and the airlines’ businesses are not based on how many roads and bridges are built. I also know that all of the programs that the government is currently considering funding has to be paid for with taxes, because besides borrowing money (which we have to pay back), all of the money that the government receives comes from taxes. If the average household can barely pay for their own bills and debts, why is the government creating another large debt that the members of our congregations will have to pay (or at least their grandchildren and great grandchildren)? How come the Obama administration have refused to detail where the $860 billion dollars will go? Are they afraid that outspoken churches will oppose things like the $400 million going to contraceptives? How does contraceptives create jobs for the car industry, the banking industry, and high tech industry?
I know that we all want a successful black president, but should our desire for blackness cause us to turn a blind eye to God’s righteousness?
Just a few thoughts. What are your thoughts?
By Mychal Massie
During his campaign, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama cast then-President George W. Bush as doing everything wrong. So, what will President Obama do right?
If his first steps are any indication - not much. A successful presidency does not come from taking classroom theory on failed political systems and saying “I can make it work.”
On his second day in office, for example, Obama called for Israel to open its border with Gaza. He wants a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians. A noble idea, albeit Pollyanna. He seems to believe Hamas will end its rocket fire into Israel after polite negotiation and an Israeli withdraw from Gaza.
Obama’s naiveté may warm the hearts of liberal classroom theorists who, like himself, believe we can all get along if we just talk and make nice-nice. Israelis knows better, having experienced the treachery and deceit of Hamas.
I don’t condemn Obama for wanting to end the conflict, but legitimizing Hamas and undermining Israel’s security is not the formula for success.
While expressing this deep concern for loss of life in the Middle East, Obama apparently lacks similar concern about the murder of unborn children.
Abortion is the number-one modern killer of blacks in America. Thousands of unborn babies of all races are killed daily here. A demographic-shattering 36.3 percent of aborted babies in 2000 were black.
While it is considered horrific that 3,446 blacks were lynched in the U.S. between 1882 and 1968, it’s appalling there is not the same outcry that the same number of unborn blacks are currently put to death every few days.
Obama may deflect his shame on the abortion question by saying he supports a woman’s “right to choose,” but that denies the sanctity of life. An early Obama executive order on “family planning” also denies taxpayers the choice of whether their tax dollars will support policies that murder the unborn abroad.
It is inconsistent to advocate for the comfort of committed terrorists while facilitating the genocide of unborn children. Pursuant to that point, Obama’s signing of another executive order to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center implies that he has more compassion for terrorists than for the unborn.
During the campaign, Obama also attacked the ethics and reputations of members of the Bush Administration and the former president for appointing them. Yet Obama has selected a Treasury Secretary who allegedly forgot to pay his taxes.
He is also hiring a lobbyist, William Lynn, for deputy Defense Secretary even though he swore lobbyists would not influence his administration. He appointed William V. Corr, the executive director of the anti-cigarette special interest group Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, as deputy secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. His choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services is former senator Tom Daschle. Although Daschle is not a registered lobbyist himself, he has worked as an advisor for one of DC’s major lobbying firms since 2006.
Despite all of his raw criticism of the Bush Administration for virtually everything - and with his own mantra of change - Obama has already made exceptions to his own hailed ethics policy, presented a simplistic Middle East policy, shown complete disregard for the families of those lost on 9/11 (and, tangentially, for American security) and appears to show disdain for the unborn future of America and elsewhere.
Yes, sir, juxtaposed to Bush’s “wrong way,” it certainly looks like Obama is doing things right.
# # #
Mychal Massie is the chairman of the black leadership network Project 21. Comments may be sent to Project21@nationalcenter.org.
Note: New Visions Commentaries reflect the views of their author, and not necessarily those of Project 21.
