FJM Blog

By Deneen Borelli

In July of 1967, Detroit and Newark were bathed in fire and blood.  Anguished and hurt, people in poor and minority communities in these cities had had enough of crippling policies foisted on them by the ruling political establishment.  They stood up and screamed for change.

In the collective melees, 66 died, 1,914 were injured and around 8,500 people were arrested.

It was an uprising against police brutality.  It was an uprising against poverty.  And it was an uprising against urban renewal and the government’s abuse of eminent domain.

Meant to acquire land for public projects, eminent domain was used as a sledgehammer against blacks rather than a scalpel on behalf of the community.  Neighborhoods were torn asunder so others didn’t have to see “slums.”

Back then, this sort of urban renewal was derisively called “negro removal.” Today, it could be repeated by the “Pickens Plan.”

You’ve probably seen T. Boone Pickens on television.  He’s the Texas billionaire promising to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by building windmills.  He pleads with us to take his word for it that his plan will work and that we should hurry to build wind turbines across middle America.

But the devil is always in the details, and acting without caution risks repeating the injustices that sparked the 1967 riots.

The Pickens Plan calls for wind farms in places such as Texas and the Dakotas, with power supplied to cities through a massive new network of power lines.  Pickens wistfully compares this proposed power grid to the interstate highway system.

That’s the problem.

When the 46,000-mile interstate highway system was built to move the privileged between cities and to their new homes in the suburbs, planners paid little mind to the property rights of those living in the way of their idea of progress.

Historian Raymond A. Mohl noted that roadbuilding in the early 1960s dislocated 33,000 people a year.  By 1969, that number was up to 200,000 annually.

Some saw these new roads as a tool to pave over black communities already in decline.  In Detroit, it was Paradise Valley - also known as “Black Bottom.”  In Newark, it was the Central Ward.

New power lines for the Pickens Plan would run 12,650 miles.  Where will those lines run?  More than likely through communities that have the least political power to oppose them.

Washington, D.C.’s poor Anacostia neighborhood certainly won’t to get the preferential treatment that residents of Middleburg, Virginia did.  A newly-announced power line near there was designed to go around Civil War battlefields and the estates of horse country’s rich and famous.

Pickens will also likely profit from his plan, despite his downplaying it, thanks to our tax dollars.  Wind energy projects benefit from a federal subsidy known as the Production Tax Credit (PTC).

Pickens’ Mesa Power company once hoped to spend $10 billion dollars on a 2,700-turbine wind farm in Texas.  According to a report by the National Center for Public Policy Research, “Pickens’ firm stands to receive between $1.66 billion and about $3 billion in PTC payments alone over ten years, a significant portion of its original investment.”

When oil prices fell, however, so did interest in the Pickens Plan.  Mesa Power is now scaling back its wind farm proposal.

But Pickens seems to have the ear of President Obama.  In his February congressional address, Obama promoted wind power over the fossil fuels currently accounting for the overwhelming percentage of America’s energy production.  This would give new and unnatural life to the Pickens Plan.

It will be a true test of Obama’s administration as to whether it will look out for and protect the property rights of people in the communities that supported and prayed for him, or if he will risk more of the racial strife he says he wants to overcome to help big business interests.

If Obama sides with Pickens, he won’t be delivering the kind of change that people voted for.

#  #  #

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 Eric Wallace, PhD

Someone please help me understand how the party of principles continues to back peddle away from those principles every chance they get? This past February, I attended the State central-committee meeting in Springfield, IL. I was our representative for Cook County GOP: as co-chairman to the county chairman’s meeting. At one point, the appointed meetings were combined into one huge meeting with the state central committee and the county chairman in one room. The Illinois Republican Party chairman stood up to address the audience; and in reference to up-coming elections, stated “although he was pro-life there should not be a litmus test for candidates”. This statement stuck out in my mind because rumor has it that Congressman Mark Kirk is contemplating a run for US Senate (2010)– and he is pro-choice. Rumor also has it that Andy Mckenna, who is good friends with Kirk, is lobbying for Kirk as the Republican nominee.

Then, quite to my surprise, this past Monday, March 23, 2009 Senator Cornyn of Texas was heard heralding the very same thing—“no litmus test”. And to whom is he speaking of to the Main Stream Media—none other than Congressman Mark Kirk. Cornyn goes on to say  “we need a moderate to win in a democrat-leaning State”.

I have a few problems with this “litmus test” rhetoric. First of all, the pro-life plank is part of the National GOP platform as well as the Illinois state GOP platform. Pro-family planks are also a part of the GOP platform, at both the federal and state level. Mark Kirk does not reflect the State party or the National party platform on either of these issues.

Secondly, the fact that party leadership would suggest there be no “litmus test” from one side of the mouth; and then from the other purport a seemingly self-serving statement that only a moderate can win, is in essence a “litmus test”. In other words, according to Senator Cornyn (and others) any viable candidate from Illinois need only apply if he/she is a social-moderate. Is this not a litmus test? But of course it’s your litmus test; and without question, it’s OK.

Nonetheless thirdly, and contrary to that opinion, we do have a process here in Illinois (and most States), which both promotes and sustains our democratic liberties—its called a primary. In the primary the people, not party leaders, pick our standard bearers for the general elections. Am I the only one who sees a concerted effort to rig the primary and pave the way for Kirk to run unopposed? Is this the same party that complained about the people not being able to select their next Senator in a special election? The hypocrisy is incredible.

Fourthly, ironically Senator Cornyn was also quoted as saying “Republicans win when they run as reformers”. Here’s where I agree with the Senator from Texas. Though, I’d be quick to say I believe we differ on what “reform” is needed for Illinois. We need someone who will not only be a catalyst to restore integrity to the political process in Illinois (freeing it from corruption); but also to transform the political parties themselves. I’ve never heard Mark Kirk’s name mentioned as a true “reformer” in either sense. Yet, hay, Obama never reformed anything either and he got elected as a pseudo “reformer”. Maybe if Kirk talks about “hope and change” people will believe him, too.

Lastly, don’t get me wrong– I respect Kirk, McKenna and Cornyn. From what I know of them they are all good people, and sincere. But I’m convinced they’re sincerely wrong about who can win in this State. And unfortunately, if they are attempting to steer the election of the next US (IL) Senate candidate from the GOP side without a primary fight- they are sorely mistaken. There are those, including this writer, who will fight for our principles and not lay them down in the name of party unity.  Our Party is no better than the Democrats if we jettison principle for expediency. Why would anyone follow a party that painstakingly crafts a platform; and then ignores it in order to garner a few more votes? Like Esau we would be selling our birthright for a bowl of soup.

Let all who claim to be conservatives be put on notice. A day is coming, and is already here, when we must stand and choose a side. Will you stand on/for principles? Or will you simply go along to get along?  We will never see reform until “we stand for what say we believe and actively engaging in the political process that represents us”. This is at the very heart (and purpose) of Freedom’s Journal Magazine. Finally, what I found most compelling about that meeting in Springfield was Gov. Huckabee, who although not in the room when the chairman spoke, irrefutably contradicted his opinion. Huckabee encouraged us to “stand for life and defend those who cannot defend themselves”. He challenged everyone in the room to stand on principle, because that is how we’ll win elections. I agree with Gov. Huckabee. I plan to stand on principle. How about you?

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Ken Blackwell

The politics of division is at play within the conservative movement. Some predominately economic conservatives are at odds with some predominately social conservatives. This internecine spat is the result of conservatives forgetting they share a common opponent.

What these conservatives should firmly fix on is that they share a basic philosophy regarding the relationship of the individual to the state. Many believe the individual possesses various rights that define what it means to be an individual at a fundamental level. More than that, all conservatives believe the source of these rights is not government.

Most conservatives believe that these inalienable rights—such as life, liberty and property, “are endowed by our Creator.” To some, this is a personal and eternal God expressed in a formal faith tradition. To others, this is a less-defined but faithfully acknowledged God. Some acknowledge no “god” but still believe that there is something greater than the individual or the state. While those in the second or third categories might not attend the houses of worship of those in the first category, all accept the idea that our human worth is not derived from government.

The place of the individual vis-à-vis the state is the root of commonality for all conservatives, and the basic disconnect between conservatives and collectivists. Government exists not to confer rights, but instead to secure rights.

Liberals, collectivists and socialists, however, look to government to fulfill all manner of basic human needs. The state takes the place of parents in the home. The state takes the place of a father in protecting and providing. The state takes the place of a mother in nurturing and caring. The state takes the place of church and home in teaching right and wrong and the priorities of life. The state takes the place of the individual in planning, preparing and persevering. Instead of saying, “God will provide,” people learn to think, “Government will provide.”

The common enemy of all conservatives is the centrality of the state instead of the individual in our political system. All conservatives oppose elevating government to a place of reverence and esteem. Government must be closely watched and carefully limited.

This is seen in countless social and economic issues. Many leftists oppose gun ownership because they believe a person ought to rely on government for protection and focus on contributing to a peaceful society, while conservatives focus on the duty and right of the individual to protect themselves and their families. Liberals favor higher taxes to fund socialized medicine and government-provided retirements, while conservatives favor the individual’s right to retain their own hard-earned money and decide for themselves what healthcare they want and how they should prepare for retirement. Liberals support strong teachers’ unions and massive increases in funding for government schools, while conservatives favor dollars following children who attend schools of their parents’ choice.

Part of this divide between conservatives is due to the sanitizing of the public square of references to God. Not many years ago, there was no dispute between conservatives over basic talk about faith. People were not necessarily more religious. There was just a comfort level with general expressions of common faith, such as prayer, signs of the Ten Commandments, or referring to school vacation in December as Christmas Break, instead of Winter Break.

But years of enforced and increasing secularism has left people of faith to their faith, but non-religious conservatives to become increasingly squeamish over even basic expressions of faith. All conservatives believe in the primacy of the individual, but such conservatism must also be rooted in the truth that the individual does not live for the state, and does not receive what is most important from the state.

Louis Pascal once said that everyone has a God-shaped hole in them. Human beings are designed with a void that only the Creator can fill. Without the Creator, people seek out things in their lives in which to put their truth and to which to give their reverence and adoration. While many secular conservatives do not agree with religious conservatives as to the nature or character of the source of our rights, they all agree that the source is not government. And it’s essential that they recognize there are those on the left seeking to drive a wedge between them.

Conservatives must wake up to this common opponent, and rebuild close and open communications to work together for an agenda that promotes individual liberty by limiting the power of government.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Armstrong Williams

In this economy, many college educated people, facing chronic unemployment, are faced with a stark choice; to remain on the dole, or take a job that’s below their pay grade. For some, this will be a difficult transition, because they believe their college degree entitles them to an occupation with a certain amount of status. Such is the dream that has been sold by the media and the government.

It used to be that college a college degree meant something. That was before the days of grade inflation, government-subsidized loans, and lowered admissions standards. Now almost anyone with a high school diploma can obtain a college degree of some sort. Whether through the abundance of scholarships, affordable community colleges, or even the dubious option of online universities, it’s easier than ever to get a piece of paper with the words “bachelors” emblazoned in official-looking block print.

The consequence for this profusion of degrees is that their value has sunk, and is now underwater. These days, because the market is so glutted with college diplomas, it’s hard to even get a job as a secretary…eh, excuse, me, ‘administrative assistant’ without a four year degree. Like many other measures of value in our economy, including the risk ratings of mortgage-backed securities, and the value of the U.S. dol lar, the college degree has become next to worthless.

This is not only true at the bottom of the spectrum, but also at the top. It is widely known at many of the nation’s top employers that an Ivy League degree no longer means that the recipient has earned it through intelligence and hard work. We know they can game the system – whether by family connections, grade inflation, or cheating on entrance exams, and the list goes on and on.

But there’s one thing that’s impossible to fake, and that’s the results of hard work. I can remember the days growing up on my family farm in South Carolina, working from before the sun rose until well after dark on one difficult task or another. Whether it was milking the cows, plowing the fields, or picking and stacking tobacco for market, there was always something difficult or tedious to be done around the farm.. My siblings and I hated it so much that we could not wait until the school year started so we could sit at a desk all day instead of bust our guts in the fields.&n bsp;

The thought of spending my whole life on a farm inspired me to excel in my studies. When I graduated from college, I remember thinking, ‘I will never go back to that farm again!’ With my newly minted degree I went to Washington to work, and quickly got a dose of the real world. The only way I was able to hold my own in a town filled to the brim with Ivy League graduates with insider connections was by outworking the competition. No matter how hard many of my counterparts worked, I could always work harder, because no desk job could ever compare to the level of effort we had to exert to make that farm work.

Over time, I have come to the conclusion that educational achievement, while an indicator of potential, is not ultimately responsible for success. From my observation, the people who have worked the hardest for the longest time have enjoyed more lasting success than those who rest on their laurels with their degrees and their family connections waiting for someone to hand success to them on a silver platter.

While, as a general rule, work trumps talent, that isn’t to say that talent and learning don’t play a role. In fact, knowledge and intelligence play a role of informing the types and nature of work one performs in the pursuit of excellence. I’ve noticed that those who reach the very pinnacle of success in our society are both educated and hard-working.

On the one hand, becoming proficient at anything requires constant repetition and practice. Whether you’re talking about a golf swing or writing a book, it all starts with going out and trying it repeatedly until you perfect it. However, just working hard won’t get you to where you want to go. You have to first know specifically what you are working towards and how to go about getting there. It does no good to swing a golf club all day, if you don’t have any knowledge about the mechanics of a good golf swing. In fact, if you keep on swinging without seeing any improvement in your game, you’re likely to give up.

That’s where education comes into play. Often we need teachers, coaches and mentors to help us maximize the benefit of the work we’re doing. It helps to have someone teach us the correct form and process for executing the tasks we’ve set forth for ourselves. This type of work, the mental work it takes to prepare for a physical task can also be quite daunting. Thinking rigorously and consistently for any period of time is probably one of the most difficult tasks for anyone. But doing so often saves us a lot of time and effort in the long run. Education, in this sense, can be compared to a roadmap which one consults before setting out on a journey. Without it, we might spend years lost in the wilderness before we finally find our way.

So, to answer the age-old question, if forced to choose, I always err on the side of hard work. Work has a way of teaching you how to make the next step. However, a lot of work can be saved along the way if you know where you’re going, and are equipped with the proper tools to get yourself there.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Harry R. Jackson, Jr.

Last week as I was discussing the difficulty of communicating issues of faith on secular media, a Catholic friend of mine asked why the Pope had spoken out so boldly on the AIDS problem. It seemed to this liberal Catholic that the Pope had once again stuck his nose where it did not belong.  Pope Benedict XVI made the following statement in Yaounde, Cameroon, “You can’t resolve it with the distribution of condoms…On the contrary, it increases the problem.”

As far as I can tell, contrary to my friend’s opinion, the Pope was right this time. In fact, his statement was not just a doctrinal position on sexuality; it was also a practical observation about a dreaded disease that the Roman Catholic Church has invested billions of dollars to fight around the world. I agree with the Pope that a responsible and moral attitude toward sex would help fight the disease.

It was appropriate that his statement was made in sub-Saharan Africa, where some 22 million people are infected with HIV (accounting for two-thirds of the world’s infections in 2007, according to UNAIDS).  Adding insult to injury, this region also accounted for three-quarters of all AIDS deaths in 2007. In four southern African countries, national adult HIV prevalence has exceeded 30%: Botswana (38.8%), Lesotho (31%), Swaziland (33.4%) and Zimbabwe (33.7%). Food crises faced in the latter three countries are also linked to the HIV/AIDS epidemic by some experts. In just the past year, the AIDS epidemic in Africa has claimed the lives of an estimated 1.5 million people in this region. Perhaps most concerning of all is the fact that more than eleven million children have been orphaned by AIDS, according to the UNAIDS 2008 report.

The Pope’s observation about the use of condoms also applies to the spread of HIV in the developed world as well. There needs to be a world- wide initiative aimed at two things: 1. stopping the spread of the disease and, 2. finding a medical cure for HIV/AIDS.

Just days before the Pope issued his statement in a far away national capital in the impoverished land of Cameroon, leaders in the world’s most powerful city also threw up their hands in exasperation. Washington, DC health officials discovered that at least 3 percent of residents are living with HIV or AIDS.  The report points to increases of incidence in every race and sex; in fact the disease has impacted every population and neighborhood within the District.

This is particularly disturbing compared to the 2006 report.  The DC report does not conclusively show that condoms do not work. It suggests to me, that many people are not even trying to use condoms. The increase in the HIV/AIDS infection rate is not the only surprise in this work. Let’s look a little deeper into the study.

Cases of HIV and AIDS in DC jumped 22 percent in the last two years. What has caused such an abrupt increase?  The report states that men having sex with men accounts for most of the cases.  Heterosexual transmission and injection drug use follow. The raw data states that of those living with AIDS, 37.5 percent were due to homosexual contact, 25.6 percent were due to heterosexual contact and 23.5 percent were due to drug use.

I was personally shocked by how many older people in the nation’s most powerful city assumed that all “the noise” about safe sex was for someone else. Those in the 40-49 year age bracket had a startling 1 in 10 rate of occurrence among residents. Further, the black community in DC seems to need a very intense HIV/AIDS education program since black men reached the highest infection rate. In the 2008 DC update, the black female infection rate is equal to that of white males.

The overarching lesson the DC numbers show me is that the AIDS pandemic has similar dynamics here in the states as it does overseas. Dr. Shannon Hader, Director of the HIV/AIDS Administration at the DC Department of Health, stated (somewhat defensively) that Washington does not have the highest rate of the disease among the world’s capital cities - but it does have the highest rate among US cities.

Thankfully, Dr. Hader stated that the District is still looking to initiate a comprehensive response, including early detection and prevention of ongoing transmission. Even the Washington HIV/AIDS Administration agrees that responsibility toward sexual encounters is a primary factor in preventing the virus from transmitting. In fact, Dr. Hader stated that along with other preventions, “…serious decisions about relationships can make a large prevention difference.”

In conclusion, let me applaud the Pope’s boldness to state the primary way HIV/AIDS can be stopped. I felt sorry for him that his brave statements have been interpreted as petty, bigoted, and out of touch with modern sexuality.  I also applaud the Roman Catholic Church for having the wisdom to minister to people around the world suffering with AIDS. Many of us non-Catholics are guilty of criticizing the way problems are being addressed without investing anything in a solution. For this reason, I have made a commitment to stamping out AIDS in our lifetime.  I have raised thousands of dollars to fund research for a world famous, DC based organization. My vehicle for raising the money was running several marathons. The fund raising has been my contribution. What’s yours?

We should all do what the hymn writer said, “If everyone lit just one little candle, what a bright world this would be!” Let’s take every opportunity to combat the spread of this dreaded disease.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Herman Cain

While you were watching the AIG Bonuses Melodrama, you missed some more important headlines that should have been aired in the media. We were all victims of congressional theatrics and media frenzy at its best.

The melodrama has produced a “Bully Bill” passed by the House, and under consideration in the Senate, to place a surtax of 90 percent on those evil undeserved bonuses.

The Bully Bill is just another example of how Congress can use the insanely complicated and unfair tax code to reward or punish people they like or dislike.

Sen. Chuck “The Bully” Schumer (D-NY) set the tone when he said, “Let the recipients of these large and unseemly bonuses be warned: If you don’t return it on your own we’ll do it for you.”

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) went for the throat and said, “Come before the American people and take that deep bow and say ‘I’m sorry’ and then do one of two things – resign or go commit suicide.”

Folks, I hope I do not have to explain to you that this was not about the less than 0.1 percent of the bailout money to AIG used for contractual obligations. This was and is all about deflecting the blame from Congress and the administration for allowing this to happen.

My North Star Writers Group colleague Candace Talmadge described the blame game beautifully in her recent article, AIG Bonuses: Feigned Outrage Fools No One, as well as the missed opportunity to prevent this sideshow from happening.

Remember what President Obama and Nancy Pelosi said: “We won, so we wrote the bill”. Yes you did, and some of us don’t just look the other way.

While the media had people preoccupied with Octo-mom and the bonuses melodrama, Congress introduced the deceptive Card Check legislation (a.k.a. the Employee Free Choice Act) in both the House and the Senate on March 10, 2009.

A small article buried inside Section A of the Wall Street Journal on March 20, 2009 should have been a big story (“Democrats Angle for Health-Care Edge” by Weisman and McKinnon). It reported that the Democratic leaders in Congress were likely to use a parliamentary procedure to win passage this year of a national health insurance program. They would change the 60-vote requirement to end a filibuster in the Senate to a simple majority of 51 votes.

The big story should have been called “Bi-partisanship takes another body blow!”

Just last Saturday, on March 21, 2009, when a lot of people had taken a day off from reading the news headlines, there was an astonishing story written by Andrew Taylor of the Associated Press: Audit Finds Dire Deficits in Obama Budget.

There were at least 10 big stories in that article. Here are three excerpts that should have been headlines:

1)“President Barack Obama’s budget would produce more than four times the deficits of Republican George W. Bush’s presidency”

2) “The new Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) audit predicted a deficit $2.3 trillion worse than last month.”

3) “White House budget chief Peter Orszag acknowledged that if the CBO projections prove accurate, Obama’s budget would produce deficits that could not be sustained.”

The other seven headlines embedded in the story are equally astonishing. Or maybe it’s just me.

Candace opened her article with the question “How stupid do they think we are?” The unfortunate answer is that they think we are real stupid.

Fortunately, some of us are not so stupid, and some of us are not watching the side shows.

© 2009 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Star Parker

It says something about the dismal state of affairs in our country today, when you look at what outrages folks.

Sure, if we want to portray business as the root of our economic ills, outrage about executives getting bonuses at a company that received taxpayer bailout funds has political sex appeal; or perhaps some company that got bailed out sent their managers to a fancy retreat somewhere; or maybe a bailed out company sponsored a golf tournament.

But where’s the outrage about the circumstances that allowed all this to happen to begin with? Where is the outrage about the ease with which politicians expropriated hundreds of billions of taxpayers’ funds to do these bailouts?

I have been looking through a new study, released by an organization called the Property Rights Alliance, called the International Property Rights Index. The study examines 115 nations worldwide and examines the correspondence between prosperity in a country and how secure private property is there.

It shows a practically perfect correlation. The more secure private property is in a given country, the more prosperous it is. Countries rated in the top 25 percent in secure and safe private property have on average nine times more income per person than those in the bottom 25 percent.

It’s one of those things that makes so much sense you wonder why you have to do a study to show it. The easier it is to steal in any given country, the less likely the economy will function well there.

You really don’t need a fancy business degree to predict this. One of the Ten Commandments, transmitted so many thousands of years ago, instructs us not to steal.

Yet basic truths such as this are becoming increasingly lost in our country, and this is what should be driving our outrage: that we now live in a country where our private property is no longer safe and the very government that supposedly exists to protect it has become the thief we have to worry about.

President Obama went on Jay Leno’s popular Tonight Show and talked about the current crisis. Listening to him, there seems little doubt that everything started on Wall Street: “The problem is … people were able to take huge, excessive risks with other people’s money.”

But, Mr. President, half the mortgages in this country are owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were and are backed up with the money of taxpayers. An easy flowing mortgage credit market built by politicians, setting us taxpayers up to guarantee it all, which is what we wound up doing, is what started this whole thing.

The president and Leno bantered about electric cars, and – talk about taking risks with other people’s money – the president apparently sees no problem tapping into us taxpayers to finance research into these cars: “So, we’re going to be investing billions of dollars in research and development around these technologies. … That’s what’s going to create the auto industry of the future.”

We’ve already used taxpayer funds to bail out auto companies. Now we’re going to use them to take over their research and development functions.

Given what the International Property Rights Index shows, we might consider that because private property has become as insecure as it has in our country – that we have really legalized theft – that this might be what’s at the root of our economic chaos.

So, we can have government issue edicts on what executives are paid at companies that politicians bail out with taxpayer funds. Or maybe we should check if families whose mortgages we bail out are going on vacation or out to dinner.

Or we can re-direct our attention from symptoms to causes. We can recall that the founders of our country intended the role of government to protect our lives and property, not violate them. And that, in times when we have respected that proper use of government, our country has prospered.

Star Parker is an author and president of CURE, Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education. Her books include “White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay.”

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
1 Comment »