FJM Blog

As a child, I can remember my mother telling my sisters to respect themselves and “don’t do anything, just to get a boyfriend.”  She was one of those wise ole black women.  She would say things like:  “If you lie down with dogs, you’ll get up with fleas.”

What m other was trying to convey to my sisters is that your values not only define who you are, they are the most important things that you can possess, so hold true to your values, don’t compromise and don’t be so desperate that you will do anything just to get what you want, particularly if you have to sacrifice your core values and beliefs to get it.  This is the message that should be shared with both political parties today.

Blacks and Hispanic are so accustomed to racism, that they can smell it a mile away.  These two groups know when someone genuinely cares for them or when someone is just patronizing them to get their vote.  Today, both groups are convinced that neither the Republicans or the Democrats genuinely care for them - they only care about their vote, but not about the issues affecting them.  It is questionable as to whether these two political parties care about any group other than themselves.

Today the white leaders of both parties have very serious concerns about nominee Sonia Sotomayor, not solely on how she might vote on certain issues while serving on the United States Supreme Court, but whether or not their treatment of her during the confirmation hearings will give their party the Hispanic vote.  As it was in the past, when it came to Black and Hispanics candidates for the United States Supreme Court, (whether nominated by a Republican administration or a Democratic administration) the underline issue was never really about how these individuals may or may not rule on certain issues, as much as it was about how the ethnic group (that they were a member of) would view the party nominating them or the party challenging them (whether it was Marshall, Thomas, Gonzales, Estrada).  In these instances it was all about race and doing anything to get the vote from the ethnic group that the nominee represented.

Although it is clear that neither party cares about either group, Republicans are most vulnerable in this race game because they are considered to be the party of racism.  For the most part, modern-day Republicans try to dodge the issue of race, and no longer take the lead on race issues as they have in the past.  The Democratic Party is worse.  They never were genuinely concerned about black folks, they only became concerned about the black vote once they realized that they could not get into a White House, without the vote of a black man (woman).

Both parties must realize that Blacks and Hispanics can see through their racist tactics.  Both parties must come to realize that Blacks and Hispanics are religious ethnic groups with conservative values - they proved it in their votes on Prop 8 in California .  Blacks who vote Republicans do not do so because they feel Republicans love them - they do so because they are acquainted with the Republican’s anti-slavery /Civil Rights history and the party’s conservative Christian values.  Blacks who vote Democrat,  vote Democrat because they believe that Lincoln was Democrat, and have been convinced that the Democratic Party has always been their friend and ally.  The latter is far from the truth.

To say that modern-day Republicans care about more about African Americans than their  Democrat counterparts, is a false statement.  In the past they did, today they can care less.  Most blacks who vote Republican, do so not because they feel the party loves them, but because of the party’s position on abortion, same-sex marriage, separation of church and state issues, and lower taxes and smaller government.& nbsp; These five issues, along with the fact that they are fully aware of the Democrat’s horrific racist past, are the primary elements that make the Republican Party more attractive to conservative blacks than the Democrats.

Black Republicans are quite concern that the modern-day Republican Party no longer boasts or identify with their impressive anti-slavery/civil rights history or that they no longer boast that they are the Party of Lincoln. Instead they relate more to an anti-Affirmative Action Reagan, than they do with the Emancipating-Unifying Lincoln.  They do so without realizing that without the success of Lincoln there would be no Republican Party today and probably no United States of America as we know it today.  This year, during Lincoln ’s 200th birthday, there was no national celebration by the Republican Party to honor their first and most impressive leader who did so much for African Americans and for America as a whole.  This concerns black Republicans.

Both parties must stop playing the race game to attract the Black and Hispanic voters (particularly when they really don’t care about them).  In respect to both ethnic groups, Republicans and Democrats should simply share their party’s history in the area of race, present the current core values of their party, then leave it up to Blacks and Hispanics to decide as to which party they will vote for. To do otherwise is demeaning, condescending and just another form of racism.

Tags: Uncategorized by Rev. Perryman
No Comments »

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

Political Appointees Said to Overrule Career Staff in Election Intimidation Case

For Release: May 29, 2009
Contact: David Almasi or Devon Carlin at (202) 543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org

In light of a Washington Times report today that political appointees at the U.S. Department of Justice forced career prosecutors to drop and/or reduce charges against men observed intimidating Philadelphia voters last election day, Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie is calling for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate this alleged obstruction of the Voting Rights Act by the Obama Administration.

“From all accounts, this was a clear-cut violation of peoples’ right to vote without fear and intimidation, but the Obama Administration appears to be trying to sweep it under the rug,” said Massie. “After all of the allegations about the Bush Administration politicizing the Justice Department, this smacks of either extreme ignorance or extreme hubris on the part of their successors. Whatever the case, an independent investigation is needed to get to the bottom of what’s going on over there.”

According to media reports, on November 4, 2008, Malik Zulu Shabazz, King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense were seen on national television standing outside a Philadelphia polling place in military-style uniforms. Jackson was an official poll watcher that day, representing the 14th Ward Democratic Committee.

Bartle Bull, a long-time civil rights activist who was working as a poll watcher in the area, said in a government affidavit that he saw the men using a nightstick to intimidate voters. Bull said their “clear purpose” was to “intimidate voters with whom they did not agree.” He also said he heard them tell a white poll watcher, “you are about to be ruled by a black man, cracker.”

A civil suit filed by the Justice Department in January alleged the men violated the Voting Rights Act “by continuing to direct intimidation, threats and coercion at voters and potential voters.” After none of the men appeared in court to face the charges, the government sought a default judgment against them.

According to interviews and documents obtained by the Times, the lawyers were later ordered to reverse themselves and ask for the cases against Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson to be dismissed. A default judgment was pursued against King Samir Shabazz to simply prohibit him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of an open polling place until November 15, 2012.

Justice Department spokesman Alejandro Miyar told the Times: “Claims were dismissed against the other defendants based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law.”

“We’ve got reports of one of the most blatant violations of the Voting Rights Act in recent memory, and the Obama Justice Department is essentially taking a pass. What’s wrong here?” asked Massie. “One could easily surmise that this is Chicago-style payback for helping Obama win the election. That would be a crime in Washington. The only way to find out who did what and for what reason is to bring someone in from the outside to get to investigate these very troubling allegations.”

Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992. For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21’s website at http://www.project21.org/P21Index.html.

- 30 -

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Armstrong Williams

“Better Red than Dead.”  That was the effete refrain of liberals during the Cold War heyday.  In other words, if the United States were required to choose, it should ape Communist tyranny rather than accept mortal risks in defense of freedom.  The United States rejected the liberal dogma.  Soviet Communism died in 1991.

At present, a variation of the “Better Red than Dead” debate confronts the United States:  namely, “Better Safe than Free.” The argument is that it is better to be safe in vassalage to a secret, omnipotent government in which the President is the law than to enjoy the thrill and dignity of self-government, transparency, freedom, and checks and balances because of an arguably greater risk of a terrorist attack.  The debate’s background is a post-9/11 environment of permanent war with international terrorism and a planetary-wide battlefield that authorizes the United States to employ deadly military force and military law everywhere in the world—including in the United States itself.  Former Vice President Dick Cheney’s National Security Speech at the American Enterprise Institute last May 21 illuminates the debate.

Its leitmotiv was that after the hijackings and murderous abominations of 9/11, the Bush administration was tasked to do anything the President saw fit to make the United States less exposed to a second edition of 9/11, for example, vandalizing the United States Constitution in contradiction to20the President’s constitutionally required oath to defend and uphold the Constitution in all its moods and tenses.

Thus, the Bush administration detained suspected enemy combatants—citizens and non-citizens alike—without accusation or charge at Guantanamo Bay.  The United States Supreme Court, dominated by appointees of Republican Presidents, held the practice unconstitutional.  The Bush administration established military commissions by executive order to try alleged war crimes with secret evidence and the combination of judge, jury, and prosecutor in a single branch.  The United States Supreme Court held the commissions illegal.  The Bush administration prohibited enemy combatant detainees from challenging the legality of their detentions in federal courts.  The United States Supreme Court held the prohibition unconstitutional.    The Bush administration conducted warrantless electronic surveillance against an indeterminate number of Americans on American soil, the “Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP),” in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).  Congress had amended FISA on numerous occasions after 9/11 to adapt to new communications technologies and to make adjustments for the heightened danger.   The fact that the United States would be spying on suspected international terrorists or their aiders and abettors would not have been news to Al Qaeda.  Its members generally hail from nations where spying is ubiquitous.  They are indifferent as to whether they are spied on with or without judicial warrants.  The same means of evasion are taken.  The TSP, nevertheless, was concealed from the American people to circumvent public scrutiny and accountability.  The Bush administration employed every legal maneuver in the books to circumvent a judicial ruling on the legality of the TSP, for example, invoking the defenses of state secrets or lack of standing.  Government by the consent of the governed, however, is a farce if the people do not know generally what their government is doing.

The United States treaty and criminal prohibition against torture contains no exceptions.  There is no ticking time bomb exception and there is no “High Value Detainee” exception.  There is no urgent information exception.  Of course, such exceptions can be made part of the law if Congress amends the anti-torture law or the President revokes the torture treaty.  But neither was done during the Bush administration.

The United States prosecuted “waterboarding,” i.e., simulated drowning, as torture during World War II when practiced by the Japanese against American captives.  The United States law prohibiting torture defines it as creating an imminent fear of death that causes20prolonged mental pain or suffering.  Republican Department of Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge declared that waterboarding constitutes torture under United States laws.  Yet neither the Bush nor Obama administrations have done anything to criminally investigate waterboarding as torture.

Current and former White House officials were instructed by President Bush to defy congressional subpoenas for testimony on the theory that presidential aides are constitutionally shielded from congressional oversight or scrutiny.  A federal court judge appointed by President Bush held the defiance flagrantly unconstitutional.

In the process of seeking to make the United States absolutely safe, the Constitution and rule of law have been crippled.  

It speaks volumes that the American Enterprise Institute Address never once mentions the sole oath that the President, Vice President, and all other officers of the United States are required to take:  namely, to support and defend the Constitution.  Mr. Cheney speaks of “the strategic thinking behind our policies,” “defending the country” rather that defending the Constitution, “our job was to stop [a sequel attack],” and, “to make certain our nation never again faced such a [9/11] day or horror.”

Of course, the best way to reduce to zero the probability of another 9/11 is to kill every person outside the United States.  No sane person, however, believes in that harrowing counterterrorism strategy.  The problem with the “Better Safe than Free” slogan is t hat no standard for line drawing is hazarded.  Should the police be authorized to arrest or search any citizen on a hunch that the target might be a terrorist?  Why not intercept every conversation and every email of every American in the United States in the hope that communications will be captured with clues about the next would-be act of terrorism?

Cheney’s general counterterrorism theory is if there is even a 1% chance of a national security danger of some sort, t he President must treat the prospect as an absolute certainty and act accordingly.  For instance, if there is a 1% chance that a citizen or non-citizen is guilty of a war crime, the United States government should treat the suspect as categorically guilty.  Forget about proof beyond a reasonable doubt or even by a preponderance of the evidence.

British arch-conservative statesman Edmund Burke admonished as the British Empire soared:  ““I dread our own power and our own ambition.  I dread our being too much dreaded.  It is ridiculous to say that we are not men, and that, as men, we shall never wish to aggrandize ourselves.”  The United States should heed that admonition in its quest for absolute safety.

www.armstrongwilliams.com

“The Armstrong Williams Show” is broadcast daily on XM Satellite Power 169 from 9:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Ken Blackwell

In an attempt to hide Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s radicalism, President Obama characterized her as a judicial moderate first appointed to the federal bench by a Republican president.

However, the president’s nomination of Judge Sotomayor is nothing short of a declaration of war against America’s gun owners. If gun owners mobilize and unite, it’s possible to stop this radical nominee.

Last year the Supreme Court handed down the landmark decision in D.C. v. Heller, holding that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to individual citizens in their private lives. The ruling marked a turning point in gun rights in this country.

In the past year, the biggest question courts now face is whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. That may sound crazy, but the reality is that the Bill of Rights only controls the federal government, it doesn’t apply directly to states or cities. Only the parts of the Bill of Rights that are “incorporated” through the Fourteenth Amendment apply to the states.

Since the Heller decision, only two federal appeals courts have written on the Second Amendment. That’s six judges out of about 170. Of those six, three said the Second Amendment does apply to the states. And those judges were out of the liberal Ninth Circuit in California, and included a judge appointed by Bill Clinton and another appointed by Jimmy Carter. — Even leftist judges can get this.

But not Judge Sonia Sotomayor. She is one of only three federal appellate judges in America to issue a court opinion saying that the Second Amendment does not apply to states. The case was Maloney v. Cuomo, and it came down this past January.

That means if Chicago, or even the state of Illinois or New York, wants to ban you from owning any guns at all, even in your own house, that’s okay with her. According to Judge Sotomayor, if your state or city bans all guns the way Washington, D.C. did, that’s okay under the Constitution.

This issue could not be more important. Yesterday, on the very day President Obama has announced Judge Sotomayor’s nomination, the National Rifle Association is arguing Second Amendment incorporation in court before the Seventh Circuit in a case challenging the Chicago ban on handguns.

If this case, or one like it, goes to the Supreme Court, Justice Sotomayor would say that Chicago can ban all your guns. If she can persuade her liberal colleagues on the Court to join her, it could become the law of the land that states and cities can ban guns. Should that happen, then you can expect anti-gun liberals in state legislatures to rush to pass new state laws doing exactly that.

The White House is telling us all about Judge Sotomayor’s compelling personal story — and it is an amazing story of what is possible “only in America.” But compelling personal stories are not the question. Miguel Estrada, whom President George W. Bush nominated to the D.C. Circuit appeals court and was planning on nominating to the Supreme Court, had a compelling story as a Hispanic immigrant who legally came to this country not even speaking English. Democrats filibustered Mr. Estrada.

Supporters point out that Judge Sotomayor was first appointed by George H.W. Bush for the federal trial court — before Bill Clinton elevated her to the Second Circuit appeals court. That’s true, but George H.W. Bush also gave us Justice David Souter, so clearly he wasn’t too careful about putting liberals on the federal bench. We can’t allow the president to hide behind the Bushes.

But when it comes to gun rights, we don’t need to guess. Judge Sotomayor has put in writing what she thinks. President Obama has nominated a radically anti-Second Amendment judge to be our newest Supreme Court justice.

There are a number of pro-Second Amendment Democratic senators from deeply red states, including Mark Begich from Alaska, Jon Tester and Max Baucus from Montana, Ben Nelson from Nebraska, Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad from North Dakota, and Tim Johnson from South Dakota.

These senators will jeopardize their seats if they vote to support an anti-gun radical for the Supreme Court. Second Amendment supporters will now be up in arms over this radical anti-Second Amendment nominee, and you should never underestimate the political power of American gun owners.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

No Rubber Stamp for Controversial Nominee

For Release: May 26, 2009
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110×11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org

Washington, D.C. - With President Obama’s nomination of U.S. Circuit Court judge Sonia Sotomayor to the vacancy being created by U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s impending retirement, Mychal Massie, chairman of the Project 21 black leadership network, is urging senators to take a very close look at her record before commenting on her fitness for the job.

“Of all the possible nominees suggested over the past few weeks, it appears Obama selected the most radical one,” said Massie.  ”The U.S. Senate has a duty to scrutinize Judge Sotomayor’s record to ensure she has the demeanor and aptitude to be elevated to such a solemn post.”

Massie continued: “During the Bush Administration, it was common for liberal senators to demand a consensus nominee with broad political appeal.  By selecting an avowed liberal in Sotomayor, it would appear Obama is not following the stipulation he and his former colleagues sought to impose upon his predecessor.  This should open up the nomination to the scrutiny it justly deserves.”

The Sotomayor nomination, Massie notes, is the perfect catalyst to begin a national debate on the appropriateness of “judicial activism” - when judges essentially cut lawmakers out of the legislative process and try to rule from the bench. For example, in a 2001 speech at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law, Sotomayor said it was appropriate for a judge such as herself to use her “experiences as women and people of color” to “affect our decisions.” In 2005, she told a crowd at the Duke University Law School that the “Court of Appeals is where policy is made” - rather than by lawmakers beholden to voters.

Massie commented: “Considering Justice Souter’s record, Sotomayor will not change the balance of the Supreme Court.  But she will likely dramatically alter the temperament of the Court and the way in which it operates.  Senators must keep this in mind as they take on the very solemn process of vetting her fitness.”

Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992.  For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21’s website at http://www.project21.org/P21Index.html.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Harry R. Jackson, Jr.

Last Thursday, May 21, a piece of historic legislation was introduced by a courageous bi-partisan group of lawmakers. Thirty-five members of the House of Representatives co-sponsored a bill that would define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The lead sponsors of the D.C. Defense of Marriage Act are Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Dan Boren (D-Oklahoma). In an era devoid of genuine bi-partisan cooperation, it is heartening to see people stand up for what is right -simply because it’s right.

The bill was created to block a DC City Council measure, approved in early May, which seeks to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The DC Defense of Marriage Act was a bold move because DC residents have been fighting for home rule for years. Despite their struggles, Congress has still maintained the procedural right to weigh in on any new law in the District of Columbia. The Congressional co-sponsors of the bill recognized that the DC City Council had not asked for input from the people of the District before they voted 12 to 1 to recognize gay marriages as the first step approving full-blown homosexual marriage. Anyone paying attention to the nation political scene knows that same-sex marriage is still a very controversial issue. Contrary to the City Council’s assertion of the popularity for their campaign for same-sex marriage, it’s hard to believe that their 92% vote for same-sex marriage would represent the wishes of any metropolitan jurisdiction in the nation.

Before I share further details about this bill and how you can get involved with the struggle, let me give you a little more of the back story. The D.C. City Council has arrogantly ignored the fact that 100 pastors signed and delivered a letter urging D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty and the Council not to sign the bill. Further, the letter was reprinted as a full-page ad in a Capitol Hill newspaper read by all political insiders. In addition, Christian ministers and lay persons of many different denominations have attended two Stand for Marriage DC rallies in the last three weeks. There is a growing sense of political outrage among DC residents.

Last Thursday, I was elated as over 400 hundred ministers from 46 states descended on DC for a strategic political briefing, lobbying, and prayer on Capitol Hill. Several hundred leaders from this group attended the press conference while others dutifully attended their pre-scheduled sessions with their congressmen and senators. Rep. Jim Jordan’s opening statements energized the crowd, “The ideal institution for raising children is family; it is moms and dads.”

Surrounded by clergy and his co-sponsors, Jordan continued his declaration of political war by saying, “…We saw what happened in Iowa. We saw what happened in New Hampshire. And when the D.C. Council did this…This is our nation’s capital; the greatest nation in history; the greatest capital in history…This is our capital city that belongs to the entire country and the residents here, with the strong support of the clergy and pastors and Christian community, {we} understand this is a fight we have to wage…”

Congressional sponsors believe they’ll gather enough public support to move forward with this legislation, but once again, biased, out-of-touch local legislators refuse to represent the will of the people. First of all, D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), who sponsored the local legislation on same-sex marriages, angrily accuses House members of intruding on states’ rights. If Mendelson was a true legislator instead of an out-of-control advocate, he would be interested in having the will of the people heard in his city.

In addition, famed Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, who has appeared on the Colbert Show, the PBS program “On the Contrary,” and numerous other venues advocating the DC community’s right to have full voting rights in Congress, yet she has opposed Congress getting involved with this measure. How can this “shadow representative” promote the people in one measure and ignore them in another?

Next, beleaguered House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has announced that she will avoid a Congressional vote on this issue. She has publicly declared that Congress should not intervene in the Council’s decision. By not representing the will of the people, I believe Pelosi would be derelict in her duties. Mendelson, Norton, and Pelosi have a blind spot that some people would call “hypocrisy.” They want their opinions and votes to count but they don’t want to honor the views of the citizens they represent. Furthermore, the issue of same-sex marriage is huge. Many are already calling this the biggest “human rights” debate of our lifetime. “Something is certainly rotten in Denmark,” as the expression goes. Perhaps we should modify that expression and say, “Something stinks inside of the Beltway!”

If Congress takes no action on the Council measure by July 6, it becomes law. Then on the heels of the reciprocity law, several of DC’s “runaway” council members plant to introduce direct legislation recognizing gay marriages performed in the District.

What can you do?

You can help us by doing three things: 1. Send a copy of this article to 5 friends, including your pastor.

2. Send the largest financial gift you can to help educate DC area laymen and clergy about the dangers of same-sex marriage.

3. Let your Congressmen know that you support the DC DOMA.

It’s time for three sleeping giants to wake from their political slumber – white evangelicals, social conservatives (including blue dog Democrats), and the minority church (especially blacks and Hispanics). America needs you! We need your voice and your vote. We also need your faith and your finances.

We need you to enter this defining social battle of our generation! “The Calvary Ain’t Coming!” declares Chris Gardner, the real life subject of the movie The Pursuit of Happiness and author of the new book Start Where You Are.

You are the answer to this nation’s most pressing problems. Let’s Keep Hope Alive!

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Ada Fisher, MD

Now that we have bailed out the banks, could it be as Fayetteville, NC conservative talk show host David Taylor suggested that we are letting the auto industry flounder because a car gives you a potential source of equity to borrow against.  By making it so that you can only get money through banks which are being socialized whether or not we want to call them such, this talk show host argues that banks and the Federal Reserve are being allowed to drown the economy and consumers in worthless money thereby controlling your access to cash without using a government approved bank.

Interesting theory and the recently revealed words of Treasury Secretary Geitner lend this argument some support.  But I’d like to suggest that there are ways to help consumer credit without the impotent consumer credit protection bill being forwarded to President Obama for signature or being as intrusive on our civil liberties as the Obama Administration has begun.

First fix interest rates nationwide to no more than 10% above the prime up to a maximum of 20%.  Did you know the Koran and Islam have admonishments against usury?  When I was a kid in North Carolina, Credit Card rates were 12%. Sears is up to 31% and bank credit cards originating in Vice President Joe Biden’s home state of Delaware are squeezing consumers dry.  Such must be stopped. The Credit Bill puts no limits on what can be charged.  With the prime interest rate less than 5% and companies charging over 30% interest that is an unearned source of profit for banking which you’ve bailed out.  This must be stopped.

The proposed Consumer Protection bill pimps us in only demanding that we be notified within 30 or more days when we are about to be abused again.  We have made credit cards the never repay lender as an alternative to scandalous pay day lenders.  Congress needs to get some testosterone and stop this floating credit rate, eliminate charges for people borrowing their own money, and allow folks to repay (including banks) early without penalty.  Part and parcel of this must include overhauling the credit rating system by not penalizing folks who responsibly utilize credit, have more than one account or operate on plastic but make their payments on time.

Second, all refunds from the government whether state or federal for overpayment of taxes must be returned within 90 days.  Any consideration that they are going to hold on to a taxpayers refund because the government is out of money should never be allowed.

Third, all current federal employees earning more than $100,000 annually should be required to take a 10% pay cut and a Cost of Living Adjustments moratorium placed on their monies.  All Congressmen and past US Presidents should likewise be prohibited from double dipping, etc. without the same being given to the disabled whether veteran or not.

No disability payments should be taxed under $100,000.  Those receiving such are already operating at less than 60% of their salary.  For those who made $30,000 as a federal government employee, that amounts to at most $18,000 the first year and $12,000 thereafter.  Insurance payouts should also not be taxed.

Fourth, Social Security payments should not be taxed upon receipt as this money was taxed when it was initially taken out of your checks.  This is double taxation without representation.  Social Security monies should be maintained in a separate account apart from the Treasury’s General Fund and not used to balance the national budget.  The Totalization Agreement which allows payments to Mexico for Social Security payments withheld on illegal immigrant labors should be voided and such monies apportioned to those states with high illegal populations providing social services to them.

Fifth, allow a tax break for purchasing consumer goods made is the USA in critical industries such as housing and automobile with up to 25% deductibility.  If we give folks a break, they will buy US made cars which will put folks to work in this nation.

Sixth, allow cost for education past high school to be non-taxable.  The President lied.  There are no $2,500 grants being offered in the stimulus bill.  Tax credits are given but first you have to have the money to payout to get such.  Stop this charade for votes.  Make $2,500 opportunity grants to all with a 3.0 grade point average on a 4.0 scale who are in the top 25% of their class.  Such rightly puts the responsibility on students to make the grades to get the reward.

Lastly stop predatory lending and limit usury on money.  Money orders must be redeemable at the place of purchase.  Currency exchanges should not be allowed to charge more than $5 on the first $100, $10 up to $1000 and $100 up to $2000 with banks under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation system required to cash legitimate checks or money orders with identification.  Loans on homes, businesses, etc. from FDIC financial institutions should not be allowed for those having incomes and/ or assets less than 30% of monies borrowed.  [Such would have stopped foreclosure properties in not allowing folks to purchase houses they couldn’t afford.]

America Wake Up!  Your credit repayments aren’t to be my burden but the government can intercede to insure fairness in lending.  Take a hot tardy!  Man up and learn the secret of most millionaires– always live below your means and save something for a rainy day.

Dr. Ada M. Fisher is a physician, previous member of a county board of education, licensed secondary education teacher and is the NC Republican national Committee Woman.  Contact her at P. O. Box 777; Salisbury, NC 28145; telephone (704) 223-2321; DrFisher@Fishernchousedistrict77.com

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
2 Comments »

With the 2010 Congressional races rapidly approaching us and the 2012 Presidential races following, critics continue to argue that Republicans need the African American vote to win the Whitehouse, a fact that many powerful white Republicans continue to ignore.

Ignoring the need to recruit blacks was Lincoln ’s mistake of the past and may be the Republican’s mistake of the present.  From the beginning of the war, Frederick Douglass and other abolitionist suggested that Lincoln recruit black soldiers if he wanted a Union victory.  Lincoln and other war experts had forgotten that African-Americans successfully fought in both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.  Blacks were barred from state militias in 1792, ironically, the same time the pro-slavery Democratic Party was formed.  In arguing against the use of black soldiers, Lincoln told Senator Orville Browning that arming black soldiers “would produce dangerous and fatal dissatisfaction in our army and do more injury than good.”

After suffering defeats in Vicksburgh , Kentucky and Tennessee , Lincoln had a change of mind and authorized the use of black soldiers with the following statement in his newly proposed Emancipation Proclamation. “And I further declare and make known that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.”  Lincoln wrote the Democratic Governor of Tennessee and said, “The bare sight of fifty thousand armed, and drilled black soldiers, on the banks of the Mississippi , would end the rebellion at once.”  He went on to say, “I desire that a renewed and vigorous effort be made to raise colored forces along the shores of the Mississippi .”

Lincoln realized that he an the black slave wanted the same thing: the defeat of the South.  Not only did the slaves want to see the South defeated, they were willing to give their lives to make it happen.  In 2004, George W. Bush had a Lincoln revelation.  He realized that African Americans were just as conservative as he and other conservatives were and that blacks opposed same-sex marriage and the infringement on the black church with “Hate Speech” laws - just like himself.  So contrary to the advice of his white political consultants, he spoke to the Urban League, the NAACP and the black clergy to share these thoughts. As a result, he took an unprecedented 11% of the black vote which was the margin he needed to win the election.

Why was Lincoln successful?  He realized that he and the black slave had a common goal and a common interest.  He realized that his commanders could not relate to black soldiers so they selected black officers to communicate to the black troops.  Bush did the same.  Bush knew blacks were traditionally conservative and were opposed to same-sex marriage and laws that would affect what the black preacher could or could not say in the pulpit, like the so-called “hate speech” law (which would cover sermons on homosexuality).  Like Lincoln , Bush selected key blacks like Michael Steele and Michael Williams and the members of the black clergy to communicate with the grass root black voters and the influential black leaders.

With the Republican’s anti-slavery and pro-civil rights track record and their opposition to same sex marriage and hate speech along with a host of other liberal issues, they must realize that they h ave more in common with African Americans than their Democrat counterparts.  But more importantly, they must realize like George W. Bush, they cannot win the election without the black vote!

Republicans must work from the ground up rather than the top down and work with grass-root leaders that can relate to the people in their community.  They must change the image of the Republican Party by featuring the diversity within the party.  No more super-stars like Newt and others, but the common everyday working class black, Asian, Latino, college age young people and women must take center stage.

Since Republicans already have the white conservative vote, they must divert their campaign funds to reach the population that they do not have.  When Lincoln wanted black soldiers, he did not go to the white communities to recruit them - he went to Frederick Douglass who was well respected in the black community.  When Bush wanted the black vote, he went to those who had the connection, respect and a track record in the black community.  He did not go to the Rush Limbaugh(s), the Newt Gingrich(s), the Bill Orielly(s) and other members of the white community.

It is true that at one time the Republican Party was the home of African Americans.  But before the black voter can come back home to the Republican Party, the Republican must come back to those things that once attracted blacks, and that is a sincere concern for their genuine welfare - not just their black vote.  Bush proved that he was sincere:

• By giving more money to Historical Black Colleges than any other president in U.S. history including, more than President Obama who cut their funding by $73 million.

• By opening old Civil Rights cases and getting convictions – unlike Obama and Eric Holder who refuse to give black farmers the three billion dollar award that the court granted them for discrimination.

• By approving funding for an African American Museum – as large as two football fields and a separate memorial for Rosa Park.

• By approving vouchers for inner-city kids so they could go to private schools like Obama’s two daughters and the children of the members of Congress.

• By supporting No Child Left Behind to improve test scores of blacks

• By giving more money than any other President to fight AIDS in Africa

• By attempting to put together Social Security Reform so African Americans can reap and enjoy the fruits of their labor

Tags: Uncategorized by Rev. Perryman
No Comments »