FJM Blog

By Star Parker

Barack Obama’s obvious comfort level with leaders of un-free countries shouldn’t surprise anyone. He is not only our first black president. He is also our first president who doesn’t like the free country he was elected to lead and feels his job is to change it.

Obama’s cordial encounter with Venezuelan thug Hugo Chavez, his bow of deference in London to the Saudi Arabian king, are extensions of behavior we have always seen on the black left. Jesse Jackson openly embraced Chavez, as well as having maintained relations with the likes of Libyian dictator Muammar Qaddafi and Yasir Arafat.

This should be kept in mind as our president now makes his own effort to bring peace to the Middle East.

It should be clear to anyone conscious and watching that central to Obama’s Middle East strategy is to disabuse the long held notion that there exists a “special relationship” between the United States and Israel. The sense of unique kinship between our country and the Jewish state has existed since Israel’s founding just 60 years ago.

The Arab world has always resented the US-Israel connection and has felt that because of this, Americans would never be an honest broker in Arab-Israeli negotiations.

Obama is out to change this. His first hundred days, from his very first television interview — given to an Arab television network — have focused on warming up our relations with Islamic nations and cooling down our Israeli ones.

We should appreciate that this shift is more than a technical change in diplomatic strategy. It reflects a change in values.

The “special” American-Israeli relationship has always reflected the shared values and traditions of the two countries. A commitment to freedom sustained by traditional Judeo-Christian core values.

Freedom House is a widely respected non-partisan organization that publishes annual reports on the state of freedom around the world.

They rate the state of freedom on a scale of 1-7, with 1 being most free.

According to the latest Freedom House data, released this past January, in the area of “political rights”, Israel rates a 1. On “civil liberties”, Israel gets a 2.

And Israel’s Arab neighbors? On “political rights”, Egypt ranks 6, Jordan 5, Syria 7, and Lebanon 5. On “civil liberties”, Egypt ranks 5, Jordan 5, Syria 6, and Lebanon 4.

Oil rich Saudi Arabia, to whose king the President of the United States bowed deeply at the waist, ranks 7 in “political rights” and 6 in “civil liberties.”

Freedom House also reports on freedom of the press. Of 18 countries in the Middle Eastern/North African area, they report only one country with a free press. Israel. Eleven of these countries have no free press, including Jordan, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. Egypt and Lebanon are rated partly free.

Despite being the youngest country in the region, Israel’s per capita gross domestic product is five times higher than the average of all its neighbors. Also, despite having no great endowment of natural resources, its GDP per capita, at $24,097, is higher than Saudi Arabia’s, $22, 296, which has, by far, the world’s largest oil production and reserves.

The great American writer Mark Twain visited the Holy Land in 1867 before Jews made their miraculous return to their ancient homeland. He reported that there was nothing there. “Palestine is desolate and unlovely.”

You have to be either blind or have a political agenda to refuse to see the incredible miracle that has occurred in the re-birth of the Jewish nation.

Of course, there is a special relationship between the United States and Israel. The same values and traditions have produced in both places freedom and prosperity from nothing.

Should we denigrate Arabs and Muslims? Certainly not. But anyone who thinks that peace and prosperity will come from abandoning those very values that got us to where we are, and along with this our friends who share those values, is deeply misguided.

Unfortunately, today we have an American president who is set on doing just that. Principled Americans and Israelis should tighten seatbelts and prepare to defend the truths we hold dear.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Harry R. Jackson, Jr.

Last week’s public relations “Victim of the Week” award should go to Carrie Prejean. Her ordeal has gone both viral and global. Made to feel like a twelve-year-old during the Miss California competition, she has now been vilified or immortalized by the press and cable news industry. Whether you believe she should have won the pageant or not, the caustic remarks of Hilton Perez about Prejean on his video blog were obviously uncalled for. Hilton’s statements mark the beginning of a new era of gay marriage activist boldness. To add insult to injury Keith Lewis, co-director of the Miss California USA and who runs the Miss California competition, attempted to moralize about the “right to marry.” I found it ironic that a man who runs a competition that parades women around in scanty clothing could attempt to speak out about gender prejudice and stereotypes.

Both Perez and Lewis believe that their opinions would not be challenged. They were wrong. In fact, they overplayed their hands this time. Their remarks were just like the intimidation I faced as a child from bullies in the schoolyard. In my experience, the only way to make bullies be quiet is to stand up to them. Just one brave person on the playground can stand down the school bully and break free from their tyranny. In our adult world, however, we need the strength of numbers. When one person stands alone, he can feel overwhelmed. In contrast, when thousands of people stand up for what they believe, they become a force to be reckoned with.

Gay marriage is not an inevitability in our nation. It can still be halted and turned around. The institution of marriage can be protected, but we need the collective voice. Let me remind you that marriage is worth fighting for. Those of us in the biblical marriage movement are not fighting because we dislike gays. We are fighting for marriage because we realize that whoever’s values shape this law will shape the practices of the next few generations.

The institution of marriage is unique in our society. It is the one institution that binds women and men together to form a family that serves incredibly important societal purposes. There is little doubt that the best environment for raising children – something that is essential for the very continuation of society – is to be raised by a loving mother and father who are married to each other. The marriage commitment goes beyond the two adults involved, and affects the children, and society as a whole, deeply. The marriage is also a commitment to society that these two adults will take responsibility for raising their children conscientiously so that they become productive citizens. Children thrive in households where their parents are married to each other. Even the Iowa Supreme Court, which legalized same-sex marriage in that state, acknowledged the scientific data pointing to traditional marriage as the ideal relationship for raising children.

Advocates of same-sex marriage want people to think that it can peacefully coexist alongside traditional marriage. The claim is that allowing gays to marry will have no impact on traditional marriage. But it will have profound impacts. It will create a conflict between people of faith who fervently believe in traditional marriage and the law, which says marriage includes those of the same sex variety. Those conflicts will always be resolved in favor of same-sex marriage because there can be no “conscientious objectors” to the law.

What are some of those conflicts?

You can teach your children at home that marriage is between a man and a woman, but your child’s school will teach them that marriage includes same-sex couples. Both are equal marriages under the law.

You can teach your kids that there are important spiritual and societal reasons to believe in traditional marriage and oppose same-sex marriage. But your kids will be told that gay marriage is a civil rights issue and that those who oppose it are akin to the racists of history who opposed interracial marriage and supported slavery.

You can believe in traditional marriage, but if you are in a regulated profession – like a counselor, physician, attorney or accountant — and act in concert with your beliefs you can lose your professional license and your livelihood.

You can be against same-sex marriage, but if you provide services to the wedding industry, you can be sued or fined for refusing to be part of a same-sex wedding.

You can be a religious charity faithfully fulfilling your mission by serving your community, such as providing adoption services, but if you refuse to provide those services to a same-sex couple, you have the choice of abandoning your beliefs or ending your mission.

You can be a church that teaches the faithful in your fold that same-sex marriage is not appropriate, but if you are too active you’ll have people demanding that your tax exemption be revoked.

The conflicts that legalizing gay marriage will create for all of society are not hypothetical. They have already happened and will become increasingly frequent as gay activists continue to push their marriage agenda forward. The message to people of faith is that the teachings we have come to hold dear and thousands of years of history must take a back seat to political correctness and the influence of gay activists.

Preserving marriage as we have known it is a battle worth fighting, and we intend to do just that.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

For Release: April 27, 2009
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or e-mail dalmasi@nationalcenter.org

The Free Enterprise Project today is announcing a call to action against General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt for engaging in business activities that threaten liberty. In the spirit of the Tea Party rallies, we are urging liberty-minded individuals to join us by signing our petition to Immelt.

Corruption, corporatism, lobbying and media bias are issues that came to light from an audio recording of GE’s annual shareholder meeting by Tom Borelli, Ph.D, shareholder activist and director of The Free Enterprise Project. The recording generated nationwide headlines by exposing shareholder outrage.

As Bill O’Reilly reported April 23:

“This is obviously a major story - when a powerful corporation, which controls a major part of the American media, may be using its power and the airwaves to influence politics, in order to make money from government contracts,” O’Reilly said. “That kind of corruption would make Watergate look small. We hope it is not true.”

“Because of the risk GE poses to liberty, I recorded the shareholders meeting and shared a copy of the recording with Fox News. It’s crucial for the public to understand that many shareholders are outraged over the leadership of CEO Jeff Immelt,” said Borelli. “Since Immelt is failing his shareholders and undermining our free society, I felt it was important that shareholder anger was not confined to a closed door meeting,” Borelli added.

“For four years we have challenged corporate power at GE because of its implications on public policy and liberty. The possibility that GE is using its news division to influence public opinion to favor President Obama in the hope of gaining government contracts illustrates the threat of unchallenged corporate power,” said Borelli.

Recently, news reports claim that journalists at CNBC - a unit of GE’s news division - were asked to tone down comments that were perceived to be critical of President Obama. Rick Santelli, a CNBC reporter, made worldwide headlines by calling for tea parties to protest against government interference in the free market system.

GE’s investment in green products such as wind turbines would benefit from Obama’s proposed cap-and-trade legislation.

To pressure GE’s board of directors The Free Enterprise Project is encouraging individuals to sign a petition to urge Immelt to make changes in the direction of the company.

The petition can be read and signed at freeenterpriser.com.

The Free Enterprise Project is a program of the National Center for Public Policy Research, a non-partisan free-market foundation established in 1982. For more information, visit the National Center for Public Policy Research’s website at www.nationalcenter.org or call (202) 543-4110.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

The Charlene Cothran Story: From Gay Publishing and Activism to Freedom, S3E5 from Pure Passion on Vimeo.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Ken Blackwell

It’s not often these days that I get a chance to commend The Washington Post editorial page. But I cannot help cheering for their excellent support for D.C. Opportunity Scholarships. I fully endorse their criticism of the Obama administration and liberals in Congress. These Opportunity Scholarships are vouchers worth up to $7,500 that have allowed parents of poor kids to send their children to schools of their choice. The vouchers are wildly popular with parents. Four times as many parents applied to receive them as could be funded under the old, rather limited appropriation. President Obama’s own education department has issued studies showing that these scholarship students are up to one half year ahead of their public school peers.

Now, even this very limited program is slated for destruction. President Obama’s chosen Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, supports the vouchers. So do Mayor Adrian Fenty and Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee. All are Democrats. These public officials, regrettably, have been rather muted in their criticism of the Obama-congressional decision to give the program the axe. Former Mayor Anthony Williams and former D.C. City Councilman Kevin Chavous—to their credit—continue to speak up for children.

Unfortunately, the Senate recently voted 58 to 39 to kill the D.C. Opportunity Scholarships. Private school alumnus Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) manned the wrecking ball.

Our friends at the Heritage Foundation analyzed the vote. They found that if only those Senate voucher opponents who send their own children to private schools had voted for the scholarships, they would have passed. The Post editors rightly point out that twice as many Members of Congress (20 percent) as the general population attended private schools growing up.

The Post would like to know which senators voted to cut off parental choice for poor children in Washington—while sending their own children to expensive private schools. So would I. This is a worthy project for investigative journalists. We do know that President and Mrs. Obama are sending their own beloved daughters to Sidwell Friends School—and that two scholarship kids who go to that school are in danger of being dropped.

As a young child, my family lived in the housing projects of Cincinnati, I was blessed by the educational activities of area churches in my neighborhood. The education I received there helped me immeasurably in developing the character and solid foundation on which my career—indeed, my very life—has been based. Later, I was privileged to serve as Chairman of the Catholic Inner School Fund. That’s why I’m a passionate supporter of parental choice in education.

What The Washington Post does not say, but what FOX News points out is that this cruel decision by the Obama administration to cut off poor children in Washington, D.C. comes at the very time this administration is giving $900 million to Gaza. There, in what some call the Palestinian territories, parents fired guns in the air to celebrate when America was attacked on 9/11. There, parents gave children candy to celebrate the 3,000 American deaths that occurred on that terrible day. There, parents attend school programs where little children dance and sing—while dressed as suicide bombers! This is not your mother’s PTA!

Secretary Hillary Clinton has tried to reassure us that our $900 million will go to “rebuild Gaza” and for “humanitarian purposes.” We have seen how Hamas—the terrorist group that controls Gaza—uses “hospitals” to store weapons and “ambulances” to re-supply rocket launch teams.

It’s hard to see how Members of Congress and this administration can justify cutting off American kids—while helping those who in Gaza who hate America.

I would like to see a listing of the senators who voted down D.C. Opportunity Scholarships while voting to send our money to the Gaza Strip. That list, at least, would provide us all an education.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

Eric M. Wallace, PhD

“The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals of today is that Conservatives take account of the whole man, while the Liberals tend to look only at the material side of man’s nature. The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic, an animal creature; but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires. What is more, these needs, and desires reflect the superior side of man’s nature, and thus take precedence over his economic wants. Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man’s spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy. Liberals, on the other hand,—in the name of a concern for “human beings”—regard the satisfaction of economic wants as the dominant mission, of society. They are, moreover, in a hurry. So that their characteristic approach is to harness the society’s political and economic forces into a collective effort to compel ‘progress.’ In this approach, I believe they fight against Nature.”
Barry Goldwater, (The Conscience of a Conservative, 1960) p. 2-3

The description of the liberal ideology above can be summed up in the science fiction depiction of the Borg. The Star Trek nemesis of the Starship Enterprise was a collective of half human half machine that had no individual identity. They only saw themselves as part of the collective. Gone was any individualistic idea, hopes, aspirations or achievement. Gone was any ethnic or cultural distinctiveness. They were all part of the collective. They were men and women without souls. Joining this collective was not optional, as they would always proclaim, “resistance is futile.” When you really listen to the proposals of the liberal democrats you can hear that same mantra in the distant background. Forced universal heath care, more taxation, government run schools and redistribution of wealth is synonymous with the collectivism of the Borg.

Conservative ideology espoused by Goldwater understood the nature of man as both spiritual and material. He understood that it is the individual achievements of Man that gives meaning, purpose and material comfort to the society at large not the other way around. Goldwater based his ideology on the follow principles.

First each human being is a “unique creature,” possessing a mortal soul and an immortal soul. Goldwater argued that the mortal soul established the differences between every other human being. Therefore each human being has different potential and must be seen in respect to their own unique abilities. This respect for the individual and the desire for individual freedom are suffocated in the collectivist ideology of liberals. No one can reach their fullest potential unless they are totally free to do so. Milton Friedman and Goldwater would agree that individual freedoms ultimately benefit society and the individual, not the collective will of society.

Second, the conservative understands that “the economic and spiritual aspects of a man’s nature are inextricably intertwined.” Man’s status of economic health is based on his political freedom. Mankind will never experience economic freedom as wards of the state. Free people require limited government in order to be productive to their fullest potential. Government control stifles creativity and asphyxiates industry.

Thirdly, “Man’s development, in both spiritual and material aspects, is not something that can be directed by outside forces.” Each individual is responsible for his/her actions and their own development. We are responsible for the choices we make in life, good or bad. Society cannot be responsible for the bad decisions people make nor should we try to shield people from the consequences of those poor decisions.

Intrinsic in these principles is that human beings are material and spiritual. One does damage to the spirit of Man if we ignore the spiritual and only focus on the material welfare of an individual. People learn by being free to make mistakes and grow from those mistakes. They are also encouraged by their successes. Hence the axiom “give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.”

Collectivist liberals underestimate the need for individuals to achieve on their own, to be productive with their own hands, hearts, minds or whatever skill-sets they develop. They also underestimate the damage that government involvement can cause to the individual because they are no longer an individual but a number, a part of the collective, the Borg if you will. Liberals want to maximize government in an attempt to force change based on their ideas. Conservatives want to minimize government believing that government impedes progress and freedom, that a free people will always out perform a governmentally controlled people, who are ultimately slaves of the State. Goldwater makes this clear when he says, “that the material and spiritual sides of man are intertwined; that it is impossible for the State to assume responsibility for one without intruding on the essential nature of the other; that if we take from a man the personal responsibility for caring for his material needs, we take from him also the will and the opportunity to be free.” (p.70) Implied in the opportunity to be free is the desire to stand on ones own two feet.

The poor are the ones who suffer the most from this problem. The welfare state takes away the freedom of the individual. It empowers the state when it over taxes those not on welfare then dictates to the recipients of that welfare what they can and can not do with the “charity.” As Goldwater warns, “it transforms the individual from a dignified, industrious, self-reliant spiritual being into a dependent animal creature without his knowing it.” It also breeds an attitude that the government owes the benefits it confers or that they are somehow entitled to such help. Thus cultivating dependence at the sacrifice of freedom.

Conservative ideology promotes freedom and rejects the collectivism of the Liberals. Though they may claim, “resistance is futile” we retort in the words of Patrick Henry, “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

This article was originally published in the March/April 2008 issue of Freedom’s Journal Magazine

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Armstrong Williams

My columns and other writings have long chronicled the decline of moral values in America.  However, I must admit to being absolutely shocked when I read recently that the Centers for Disease Control has estimated that nearly forty percent of U.S. births in 2007 occurred outside of wedlock.   Its one thing when teenagers and members of lower socioeconomic classes fall prey to this phenomenon.  But the reality of out of wedlock births at such a high rate suggests that the problem has spread much wider than ever could have been imagined.  This outrageous number of out of wedlock births across age and socioeconomic sectors signal the wholesale disintegration of our American family.  Welcome to the dawn of the age of the American Lust Child.

Some would question why it matters. What does society care whether or not children are born to wedded mothers at all?  After all if the parents are together but not married, or single but wealthy enough to support the child, then no big deal right?

Wrong. There is more to raising children than just food, clothing and shelter.  There is non-material things that parents provide that cannot be quantified in dollars and cents, but are just as essential for that child to grow up and become a productive member of society.  They include, providing a strong moral foundation, teaching faith, perseverance, and discipline.  It’s not that one parent is incapable of doing this alone.  But in most U.S. households, where someone has to work to bring in an income, the moral education of children requires teamwork if it is to be done correctly.

Of course two people do not have to be married in order to have a committed team for child rearing purposes.  But the reality is that the bond of commitment between the parents is strengthened when sanctioned before their wider family and when bolstered by the social and economic benefits conferred by marital status.  Married couples can more easily combine income to purchase homes, and enjoy distinct advantages under the tax system for raising their families.  Children of married couples are more likely to graduate from college, and enjoy a higher degree of more success than those raised by single parents.

Moreover, marriage leads to the creation and preservation of intergenerational wealth.  Even as far back as Shakespeare’s time, people recognized that parental legitimacy conferred social and economic benefits on children that even moral perfection could scarcely equal.  In King Lear, Edgar, the Lust son of the Earl of Gloucester questioned society’s judgment of him, regaling the system of marriage and legitimate birth as a cruel joke.  “Wherefore should I stand in the plague of custom and allow the curiosity of nations to deprive me [of my inheritance]?” he regaled.  But the reality is that legitimacy confers a name, and a name becomes a legacy.  Legacies, in turn create nations and empires.

Just ask the children of professional athletes and entertainers born within wedlock, and those born outside of it.  While the law may compel the absent father to pay child support, it cannot force him to become a father.  Those children, the ‘legitimate ones’ if you will, end up far better off than the babies born out of on-the-road romances.

In many ways social disintegration is the symptom of modernity.  All of the trappings of modern life, the degrees, the jobs, mortgages and marital responsibilities lead many to view their lives as surreal l and lacking any real foundation. The individual, they feel, gets drowned out by notions of social status. In rejecting social institutions like marriage, they feel that they can only be authentic when divested of the cultural trappings that seem to shield them from the difficult truth about their existence. They want to perceive themselves as individuals who are free to choose any option that they might find appealing.

It is precisely at this point that we begin to fall apart as a society, and the true costs of naked individualism, the ‘if it feels good, do it’ mentality becomes clear.  People like Nadia Suleyman, the infamous “Oct-Mom,” exemplify the effects of this mentality at its extreme.  While it’s all well and good for her to go around having fourteen children octuplets, including octuplets, out of wedlock, it’s society that ends up paying the price.  Although free e to make an individual (and some would say selfish) choice, she must now rely on society to supply her children with medical care and housing.

The notion of individuality is based upon a vain aspiration to live independently of the transcendent moral laws. That people feel this way is not entirely their fault – we live in a society that has failed us in so many ways.  Leaders have been shown to be hypocritical, and political concepts such as liberty and freedom have in many cases rung hollow in the face of discrimination and oppression.  But this should not make us cynical about our own moral responsibilities.  True freedom for the individual can only be achieved by living in harmony with a higher order that governs the universe and everything in it.  And that order requires that children be afforded the opportunity to grow up in a married household.

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 »

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »