FJM Blog

By Herman Cain

The Republican alternative to Democrat-care, which liberals don’t want you to know about, has been hijacked. They don’t want people to know about it because the Astroturf, un-American crazies might like it.

The “Empowering Patients First Act” (H.R 3400) was introduced by Representative Tom Price (R-GA) and 27 co-sponsors on July 30, 2009 prior to the congressional recess. It was then referred to eight House committees.

The head hijacker is Speaker Nancy Pelosi. As Congressman Price pointed out during a radio interview with me last week, the rules in the House assert that bills will remain in committees “for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker.” Thank you Nancy!

The highly contentious 1,000-plus-page Democratic health care proposal cleared the committees in a few days. The 63-page Republican alternative is stuck in committees and it can’t get out. Speaker Pelosi can simply keep it there while they continue to try to shove their proposal down the throats of the American people.

The mainstream media has aided and abetted the hijacking of the Republican alternative. In addition to not reporting on the alternative, they have helped to keep public attention away from the hidden provisions of the Democrats’ health care Trojan horse. They have also helped to keep attention on “how do we pay for it” and “what do we call it” as they proclaim it must pass.

The president and his administration, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the liberals in Congress are trying to sell the public on Democrat-care, rather than listen to what a majority of we the people are saying. The Democrats are organizing hundreds of rallies across the country to counter the thunderous disagreement that they have encountered against Democrat-care during their August recess, and they label all criticism as smears and lies.

The Obama Administration is even actively recruiting college students to join its “National Organizing Internship” program and earn college credits for helping to promote the president’s agenda of change. Hopefully, many of these college students will start asking the right questions about his agenda and the “change” he wants.

Some of us have already found answers to those questions, and we don’t like them.

Although it has taken a lot of people and organizations many laborious days and weeks to uncover what’s in the Democrats’ H.R. 3200, I was able to distill the key components of the Republicans’ H.R. 3400 in a few hours. I felt as if I were back in college solving a complex math problem (I was a math major). Here’s what the Democrats don’t want us to know.

The Empowering Patients First Act (H.R. 3400) would allow:
•    Individuals to choose their health insurance (no mandates)
•    Deductibility of health insurance premiums regardless of who pays
•    Employers to provide flexible health insurance options to employees
•    Health insurance coverage for low-income families (300 percent of the federal poverty level)
•    Health insurance for high-risk individuals (pre-existing conditions)
•    Sale of health insurance across state lines
•    Expansion of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs)
•    Individual membership association health insurance plan
•    Association Health Insurance Plans
•    Medical liability limitations (Tort reform)

Unlike Democrat-care, the Republican alternative would not impose fines on workers or employers, require cuts in Medicare, increase taxes, require a new government bureaucracy, require a “government health insurance” option nor add $1 trillion or more to the national debt.

The Republican alternative is simply less government, fewer taxes and more choices, whereas Democrat-care is just another attempt to hijack more of our liberties.

But hush y’all. The Democrats don’t want you to know that.

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

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Deneen Borelli

As Congress considered the Waxman-Markey “cap-and-trade” bill, President Obama rallied House Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats at the White House.  In making a point, he gestured to Abraham Lincoln’s portrait and said, “He had a chance to affect history.  You, too, have a chance to affect history.”

How ironic.

Lincoln is remembered for liberating blacks from slavery.  Cap-and-trade legislation supported by Obama, allied lawmakers and now the NAACP would, conversely, enslave all Americans.

Billed as a way to combat global warming, cap-and-trade legislation already passed by the House and now under consideration in the Senate is - at its most basic level - a tax that punishes those who rely on fossil fuels.  That unfortunately means virtually every American.

Higher energy costs, higher unemployment and slower economic growth expected from cap-and-trade would reduce living standards, increase dependency and likely chain Americans to government programs.

Back in 2007, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that “most of the cost of meeting a cap on [carbon dioxide] emissions would be borne by consumers, who would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline… [and] poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households would.”

That makes it particularly troubling when the NAACP, at their recent convention, jumped on the cap-and-trade bandwagon.  Politicians are expected to be opportunistic, but a group founded to advance blacks should not promote energy policies preferentially harming those with the least.

Harry Alford, head of the National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC), opposes cap-and-trade. Alford testified before the Senate about this, and made national news when he objected to California Senator Barbara Boxer’s attempt to place a premium on the NAACP’s opinion over the facts presented by the NBCC president.

A NBCC-commissioned study of cap-and-trade by CRA International finds new regulations would:

*    reduce national GDP roughly $350 billon below the baseline level;

*    cut net employment by 2.5 million jobs per year (even with new “green jobs”);

*    reduce earnings for the average U.S. worker by $390 per year.

Alford’s not alone. His skepticism is shared by a majority of blacks.

For example, 76 percent of blacks want Congress to make economic recovery - and not climate change - its top priority.  This is a finding of a nationwide poll of blacks conducted for the National Center for Public Policy Research by Wilson Research Strategies.

Among other key findings:

*    38 percent of blacks believe job losses from climate change legislation such as Waxman-Markey would be felt most strongly in the black community.  Seven percent believe job losses would fall most on Hispanics and just two percent on whites;

*    56 percent of blacks believe economic and quality of life concerns of the black community are not considered when addressing climate issues;

*    52 percent of blacks don’t want to pay more for gasoline or electricity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 73 percent are unwilling to pay more than 50 cents more for a gallon of gas, and 76 percent are unwilling to pay more than $50 more per year for electricity.

Despite NAACP boosterism, it’s clear black America want a stable economy before any risky schemes with questionable environmental results are considered.

A new, punishing energy tax will be an economic burden for those least able to afford it. Coincidentally, these are the individuals Obama claims to want to help most.  Additionally, if cap-and-trade passes, it would break Obama’s campaign pledge to not raise taxes on households earning less than $250,000 a year.

As slaves had no representation in early America, black Americans are now finding themselves adrift as the NAACP and President Obama promote cap-and-trade regulation. Emancipation from such regulation, however, is the change all Americans can believe in and benefit from.

#  #  #

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 Star Parker

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin missed a great opportunity to personally kick off an issue of enormous importance to her state and to the nation.

She was scheduled to appear with me at an Alaska Family Council event in Anchorage to launch Alaska’s Parental Involvement Initiative, which will require parental notification of teenage girls under age 18 before they can get an abortion. But, the schedules of we mortals cannot retard the imperatives of history, so, despite Mrs. Palin’s absence, we’ve gone to war with the army we have.

Currently 35 states have laws that require either parental consent or notification in order for a teenage girl to receive an abortion. Alaska passed one in 1997.

However, after ten years on the books, in 2007 the Alaska Supreme Court, arguing that sharing this information with parents violated the privacy of their teenage daughters, found the law unconstitutional. So now a 13 year old can get an abortion without the knowledge of her parents.

A large percentage of these abortions are paid for with state Medicaid funds, but no one seems to think that parents’ privacy is being violated using their tax funds to pay for these.

Research shows the remedial benefits of parental involvement when a pregnant teenager considers abortion.

And research shows the profound psychological damage caused by teenage abortion. But, perhaps we should be wondering who we are today that we need to gather data to address an issue as intuitively obvious as whether a teenage girl may abort her child without her parents knowing.

Of course there are exceptional considerations, like abusive parents. But the Alaska initiative deals with this, as did a similar initiative in California, which was defeated last November.

No, this is not about being reasonable. It is about ideology. And what we have are opposing worldviews that cannot be reconciled. It’s about choosing one or the other.

One view is secular, materialistic, and sees only individuals and the rights they claim.

The other view is about truths that precede individuals, and social realities of which individuals are a part, like family.

This contrast and conflict could not have been more clearly laid out than in an exchange at a congressional hearing last April between pro-life New Jersey congressman Chris Smith and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Smith was questioning current Administration policies to promote abortion internationally. As part of his questioning, he waxed philosophic and asked Mrs. Clinton about her recent acceptance of Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger award. Sanger founded Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider.

He pointed out to Mrs. Clinton that Sanger was a eugenicist and racist who said “The most merciful thing a family does for one of its infant members is to kill it.”

The Secretary of State listened stoically and then replied: “We have a fundamental disagreement …We happen to think that family planning is an important part of women’s health, and reproductive health includes access to abortion.”

A century and a half ago, a fundamental conflict in values in our nation came to a head. In one view, black African slaves were not human, so the question of slavery was about political, not moral, reality. The other view saw the slaves as human and slavery as a moral outrage. The conflict fomented at the nation’s grass roots until it exploded in the national arena.

The parental involvement ballot initiative in Alaska is about Americans again grappling at our grass roots with crucial basic questions that divide us that must be resolved.

Are we a people that see the unborn, family, and individuals as all part of the fundamental fabric of life? Or are we a materialistic, secular nation of individuals making political claims on each other?

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Armstrong Williams

Free speech is such a fundamental principal in the United States that was codified by the First Amendment to the U.S Constitution.

The First Amendment protects all speech, especially political speech which criticizes the government or proposes unpopular or obnoxious ideas. The founding fathers recognized that unfettered political discourse is the sine qua non of a successful democracy. It is necessary to publicly discuss all sides of issues that may result in laws that affect all Americans.

While the First Amendment protects speech, it does not protect the speaker from the consequences of his speech. Thus, the proponent of unpopular ideas sometimes subjects himself to economic and social sanctions from political opponents who choose not to engage him in challenging responsive discourse. When this happens, it tends to chill discussion and inhibit new ideas.

John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, found this out the hard way. Mr. Mackey wrote an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal in mid August suggesting a number of health care reforms that do not entail a single payer public option. He opened the article with a provocative quote from Margaret Thatcher that was bound to offend the far left: “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

He followed this quote with a number of constructive and rational health care reforms, which will not be repeated in this article. He then undermined the legal authority of the far left with a strict construction reading of the U.S. Constitution.

“A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care  because there isn’t any.”

How could the founding fathers forget to give Americans a right to health care? Well, if the liberal wing of the Supreme Court could find a “right” to abortion in the Constitution through Roe V. Wade, these creative jurists may also find a “right” to health care in some future case. But liberals must wait for another Sonia Sotomayor to join the liberal wing of the court before this hidden constitutional right is found.

Since no constitutional basis for health care exists at this time, President Obama recently asked clergy attending a conference to proselytize to their congregations a moral and religious obligation to support his version of health care reform. While the liberal mainline Protestant clergy and reform Jewish rabbis will undoubtedly agree with the president, he will have a harder time convincing Catholics and evangelical Protestants.

Fortunately, Mr. Mackey kept religion out of the discussion of health care reform. Perhaps Mr. Mackey’s biggest offense is that he suggested that Americans, not a nanny state, should be responsible for their own health by making healthy lifestyle choices.

“Rather than increase governmental spending and control, what we need to do is address the root causes of disease and poor health. This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for their own health  Most of the diseases which are  killing us  are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal or no alcohol consumption, and other healthy lifestyle choices.”

Statistics on Americans’ lifestyle choices speak for themselves. Two-third of Americans are overweight. Twenty-one percent of Americans smoke. Less than two-third of American adults get recommended minimum weekly exercise. You do not have to be a dietician to realize that many Americans have unhealthy diets.

Unfortunately, Americans cannot blame McDonald’s, Philip Morris USA and TV for their poor health. This is a free country, and Americans have the right to choose a healthy or unhealthy lifestyle. To paraphrase Michael Jackson, it is “the Man in the Mirror” that is responsible for many of America’s health problems and costs.

Whole Foods is a supermarket chain that emphasizes healthy organic and fresh foods. Needless to say, many of Whole Foods customers are liberal Democrats. In response to Mr. Mackey’s op-ed piece, a number of liberal bloggers called for a boycott of Whole Foods because the CEO does not share their left-wing ideology.

According to Russell Mokhiber, a leader of the Whole Foods Boycott, in an interview on Fox News said, “[Mackey]’s against single-payer  I think it makes him a bad guy.”

Even though he agrees that health care reform is desirable; he is a bad buy because he disagrees with Mr. Obama’s version of single-payer health care reform. This is a scary political trend when people are considered bad merely because they disagree with opponents’ political solution to health care reform. This is not a way to promote discourse on health care reform.

Liberalism has a long and admirable history of being open minded and tolerant. Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union pride themselves on defending free speech from all sides of the political spectrum. Liberal academics in America’s universities defend the tenure system because it enables professors to express unpopular views. The liberal media jealously defends its special role in the fourth estate to expose and criticize government policy because it is essential to freedom in a democracy.

Therefore, it is disappointing, but perhaps not unexpected, that some close-mined liberals are boycotting Whole Foods because the CEO proposed constructive discourse that was not part of the liberal Democratic Party line. Mr. Mackey’s real offense is that he cannot find a right to health care in the Constitution and proposes that individuals take some responsibility for their healthy life style choices. His solution to health care reform does not conform to Obama Care.

The liberal establishment has made it clear. If you do not follow the party line in a liberal institution or one serving liberals, you will be penalized for free speech that contradicts liberal orthodoxy. The case of Mr. Mackey is the most recent evidence American Liberalism has morphed into intolerance toward competing ideas. America will lose great ideas in the long run if the presenter of unorthodox ideas is penalized.

www.armstrongwilliams.com

“The Armstrong Williams Show” is broadcast weeknights on XM Satellite’s Power 169 channel from 8 to 10 p.m.

Watch Armstrong Williams on WICS/WICD-ABC 20/ABC 15 Sundays at 12:00 a.m. and WYZZ-FOX43- Sundays at 7:00 a.m.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
1 Comment »

By Herman Cain

When Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) was asked a question at a town hall meeting last week about runaway federal spending, he shifted the subject to the cost of the war in Iraq (that’s also a Blame Bush move). When a lady asked him about the Democrats’ health care proposal he asked the lady “On what planet do you spend most of your time?”

In a recent interview on ABC, Sen. Arlen Specter repeated his view that the people attending town hall meetings on health care reform were not representative of most Americans. He is ignoring the truth that they are representative.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats have called the town hall meeting attendees Astroturf as opposed to real grassroots – un-American and a bunch of crazies simply because we passionately disagree with ObamaCare and DemocratCare.

That’s what liberals do. They shift the subject, ignore the truth and call opponents names in order to avoid a real debate or rational discussion. These are their SIN tactics.

The mainstream media are equally skilled in the SIN tactics.

CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric commented on August 14: “These are tough and challenging times and lots of people are scared about their jobs and the economy (shift). But we can’t let fear and frankly ignorance (name calling) – drown out the serious debate that needs to take place about an issue that affects the lives of millions of people.” It’s not 46 to 50 million as liberals claim. It’s closer to 10 million people.

The real ignorance is “not knowing” what’s in the proposed legislation. The real fear comes when we find out. These Astroturf, un-American crazy people from outer space are finding out, and we do not like it or want it.

Since the president and the Democrats have not been able to jam government-controlled health care down our throats on a fast track, they are shifting the rhetoric again. This time the shift is from “government option” to “public option” with no stated changes to the proposed legislation.

Liberals have tried to stay away from admitting that their approach would lead to a single-payer system, because that would be a dead giveaway of the real intent.

But the cat is out of the bag!

In their own words, the president, Rep. Frank and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois) admitted their intent of getting to a single-payer system, but the White House says those comments were taken out of context. You be the judge.

A week ago, President Obama and members of his administration signaled that they might be open to legislation that did not include the highly contentious government-run health insurance option. The liberals went ballistic immediately.

Sixty-four House Democrats came out of the single-payer closet threatening to not support health care legislation without the now-labeled public option. A top union official said he and his members might sit out the 2010 elections without a public option. Good!

As the president and the Democrats try to craft a sales pitch that the American people will swallow, they continue to ignore the most compelling evidence to not go down that single-payer road. Namely, it ultimately leads to government-forced rationing as it has in Canada, England, Germany and other countries with socialized health care systems.

The president and the Democrats also continue to ignore real ways to make health care better in America and other alternatives to Obamacare.

It would be a sin to continue down the wrong health care road.

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

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Star Parker

President Obama took his case for what he now calls “health insurance reform” to the faith community. He made his pitch in a phone call, also broadcast over the Internet, to clergy who called in and logged on from around the nation.

In his remarks, the President ticked off points of contention that dissenters have with his proposals — “government takeover of healthcare…government funding of abortion…death panels” — and dismissed these concerns as “fabrications.” In one swipe, Mr. Obama reduced his opposition to liars.

And why, according to the President, are dissenters supposedly making all this stuff up? Because, he told his audience, they want to “discourage people from meeting…a core ethical and moral obligation…that we look out for one another…that I am my brother’s keeper…”

So those whose fight for individual freedom are immoral and our moral champions are those who want to extend the heavy hand of government.

Forgive me if sermons about morality are a little hard to swallow from a man who supports partial birth abortion, who just announced his intent to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

And who really wants to obstruct moral behavior?

About 100,000 Americans participate in private, voluntary Christian communities that take care of their own healthcare independently of government and insurance companies. They are called health-care sharing ministries.

These communities assess members “shares”, based on family size, which are paid monthly, in addition to annual dues.

Those in the community who need care submit their claims to a central office, which sends members monthly bulletins informing them whose care their monthly payment will be covering.

No government. No insurance companies. It’s health care with a true human face, operating in freedom, where those paying know who they are paying for and for what.

In addition to sending funds to cover costs, they send notes and pray for the sick person whose costs they are covering.

You wouldn’t think that communities that embody the very essence of personal responsibility and Christian love would need lobbyists for their protection. But they do.

If Barack Obama has his way, they’ll be out of business.

Part of the thousand page health care bill mandates that individuals buy insurance and that companies provide it, or pay a fine. These government mandates to buy and provide insurance would make health-care sharing ministries, where communities of individuals contribute their personal funds to take care of each other, unviable.

These ministries share contributed funds of around $80 million dollars annually to take care of each other, driven only by guidelines of biblical principles to “Bear one another’s burden, and thus fulfill the law of Christ.”

It’s crazy that Christian Americans have to lobby to be free in their own country.

Health-care sharing ministries is one particularly beautiful example of how faithful Americans take care of themselves when allowed to be free. But there are many others.

In thousands of homeless shelters around the country, charitable Americans provide complete health care for the homeless. There are 5000 crisis pregnancy centers, financed privately by charitable Americans that provide free care for pregnant women.

Many creative ideas have been put forth on how American health care delivery can be dramatically improved if markets are allowed to work. John Mackey, chairman of Whole Foods, listed eight in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed.

In another Wall Street Journal column, a University of Chicago Business School professor explained how forward purchases of insurance could deal with the problem of pre-existing conditions.

But, Barack Obama and congressional Democrats have slammed the door on all this. They only want to hear about more government. Not less.

The problem isn’t that dissenting Americans are immoral. It’s that Democrat leadership has a problem with individual freedom.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Murdock Gibbs

If you’re a supporter of President Obama, I beg of you to please ask your representatives to start speaking the truth and quit smearing sincere Americans.

We’ve already seen “tea party” activists pooh-poohed and marginalized. They’ve even been called racists. They are just concerned citizens - concerned like our patriotic founders about high taxation and unresponsive government.

Likewise, recent health care reform-related protests at town hall meetings across America are not the organized, subsidized “mobs” they are being portrayed as by many reports.  They are moms, dads, veterans, college students, plumbers, painters, senior citizens and other Americans who - unlike most members of Congress - are actually reading the health care bill and finding some disturbing elements in its 1,000-plus pages.

These Americans simply disagree with the Obama Administration’s assessment of the issue and the urgency to pass legislation that could send America into bankruptcy, diminish the quality of health care and inch us closer to socialism.

The vilification of opponents of the Obama health reform plan must end.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), for instance, says the protesting at town hall meetings are false grassroots - “astroturf.” Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) says the protestors are dressed too nicely - and that is proof they must be hired by Republicans or insurance companies.

The White House even wanted people to report “fishy” information (or misinformation as it is called) to a government web site.  Oh yes, don’t forget to give the name, address and other pertinent data about the source of this “fishy” information. They claimed this wouldn’t turn into an official “enemies list,” but disabled the address after days of bad press.

And where is the civility and fairness in sending union members to town hall meetings for the express purpose of crowding out those who disagree with the bill?  What about reports that union members in Missouri even beat up a black guy, using racial slurs against him and sending him to the hospital?

This wasn’t cops and a black Harvard professor, just was a few union thugs who “acted stupidly.”

Is the strategy to muscle the bill through Congress, sneak it through, slip it through, rush it through or whatever without allowing the light of examination to check it out?

It’s time for the Obama Administration and its supporters face the music: its words, its trillion-dollar bills and its spend-spend-spend ideas are causing discontent. Tax-us-more dictates are not Gospel.  They didn’t come down from the mountaintop with Moses!

Try this one on: some - maybe most - Americans don’t agree with the White House’s economic formulas.  Furthermore, these voices of informed dissent will not be silenced even in the face of congressional name-calling, media bias and even bullying from the President.  After all, it was Obama who said: “I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking.  I want them to just get out of the way.”

Not everybody likes the Obama health care reform agenda.  This isn’t a bad thing - it’s a simple indicator that we live in a democracy.  President Obama and other elected leaders need to remember this, and they need to listen to these people.

After all, some of them have even read the bill.

#  #  #

Murdock “Doc” Gibbs, a member of the national advisory council of the Project 21 black leadership network is an entertainer and public speaker from Coppell, Texas. Comments may be sent to DBorelli@nationalcenter.org.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
1 Comment »

By Ken Blackwell

An independent polling company is out with a new survey with stunning news: Family Research Council’s ad warning of President Obama’s government takeover of health care is being highly effective.

HCD Research used its MediaCurves.com website to poll Americans’ ideas about ObamaCare. FRC’s ads criticize the President’s plan for two fatal flaws: it will force Americans to pay for abortion-on-demand and it will lead to rationed health care for all Americans.

Sixty-four percent of Democrats found the ad effective. Eighty-one percent of Republicans and 71 percent of Independents agreed. These are extraordinary numbers.

The Washington Post reports that the Obama administration has been caught “by surprise” by the path of the debate on health care. They hadn’t anticipated that the Left of their party would be so adamant about holding onto a “public option” as part of the President’s plan.

The Obama Administration tries to say that no one provision in the health care takeover is a “deal breaker.” But the Obama team knows that publicly promoting free abortion could be a deal breaker, so they try to convince us that abortion is not even in the plan. Family Research Council’s Tom McClusky has shown seven reasons why abortion is in the plan and ten reasons why health care rationing is also in the plan.

What this poll shows is that federally-funded abortion is not a wedge issue, as Leftists contend, not a “distraction,” as President Obama maintains. It is vitally important. Opposition to federally-funded abortion is a bridge issue, bringing together Americans of all parties and ethnic and religious backgrounds.

It also shows that President Obama’s irrational idea that you can “reduce” the tragic toll of abortion by making abortion free is catching up with him. Americans are rightly skeptical that this makes any sense.

For thousands of years, the first rule of medicine was this: Above all, do no harm.

Killing is not healthy. Despite 36 years of liberals claiming that abortion is good for health, that it is nothing more than another medical procedure, Americans do not believe this. Even pro-choice Americans do not believe this. Here’s what reporter Sarah Kliff wrote about visiting abortionist LeRoy Carhart’s facility and witnessing an abortion:

When I returned from Omaha, friends and colleagues wanted to know if I had “done it.” When I said I had, their reactions surprised me. Friends who supported legal abortion bristled slightly when I told them where I’d been and what I’d watched. Acquaintances at a party looked a bit regretful to have asked about my most recent assignment… But my experience (among an admittedly small, largely pro-choice sample set) found a general discomfort when confronted with abortion as a physical reality, not a political idea. Americans may support abortion rights, but even 40 years after Roe, we don’t talk about it like other medical procedures.

President Obama is trying to make abortion “like other medical procedures.” Hillary Clinton says reproductive health care includes abortion.

But abortion is not health care. Intuitively, everyone knows that.

This feeling goes very deep with Americans. Lincoln said it best: “Nothing stamped in the divine image was sent into the world to be trod upon.” Ultra-sound technology teaches us every day that unborn children are stamped in the divine image. It is why more Americans than ever are counting themselves pro-life. And it is why the Obama health overhaul is in deep, and deepening, trouble.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Armstrong Williams

The U.S. is threatened with a number of challenging military situations: Iran, and its recalcitrant regime; a muted, but not defeated, Hamas; an increasingly hot war in Afghanistan; and, of course, the North Koreans. Though style has certainly changed in the Obama Administration, often the substance of policy has not. In the hardest case, that of N. Korea, the alternatives are shockingly constant: confrontation or capitulation. They may be dressed up in Six-Power talks or in ‘humanitarian gestures’ (everyone who believes that former Pres. Clinton’s actions - noble though it may be - were not drenched in symbolism [we don‘t negotiate with terrorists] and thereby ‘political’ raise your hand), but there is an unerring constant: either we will stand up to an aggressive, repressive, and brutal regime or we will negotiate and capitulate, at least partly, to its demands.

Kim Jung II is well aware of the current state of our great nation. He understands that we are spread frightfully thin, that it appears that our social policy is going through a transformation and that we are facing the greatest recession since The Great Depression. To add, we have a president who seeks to court leaders around the world regardless of their willingness to unleash fear, terror and chaos among their people. To add to this pile, Kim Jung II has always been an eccentric character, who delights in public attention. If there were any time to make a bold move against the US that time would me now. After all, he is not going to live forever.

Though the parallel is not exact, the situation with N. Korea bears some analogy to the nuclear threat faced by another young president with a minority affiliation. John Kennedy found himself in October 1962 faced with a direct nuclear threat from a brutal regime led by an enigmatic leader. Nikita Khrushchev had bullied Mr. Kennedy at their earlier summit, and needed a way to advance the Soviet standing in the world after an inconclusive Berlin crisis and the humiliation of having the U.S. attack the only Communist regime in the western hemisphere at the Bay of Pigs. Khrushchev acted from weakness. The Soviet Union knew all about the Missile Gap Kennedy had hammered the Republicans with during the campaign. And, he knew it was much in the U.S.’ favor. That, together with the U.S. missile bases that surrounded Soviet territory gave the US a decided nuclear advantage.

Today the U.S. possesses several key advantages akin to those: N. Korean territory is surrounded by the seas, a US preserve. Just over its borders and a short distance across those seas are major U.S. allies in S. Korea and Japan - countries much richer and more populous than N. Korea. Increasingly, these nations, and the US are armed with ever more effective missile defenses and advanced military technology. Against this, the N. Koreans can only rage, and brandish the only weapon that could potentially confer asymmetric advantage: a nuclear weapon, preferably one tied to an intermediate or intercontinental range missile.

The lesson of recent history: Desert Storm; Iraqi Freedom; the nuclear agreements with India is that only a nuclear capability suffices to immunize a country from U.S. attack. It may even - in the case of India - justify special treatment. This is the N. Koreans’ covet.

Just as Khrushchev did, might the N. Koreans undertake a gambit to redress, radically, the balance of power vis a vis the US? After all, this is what the Soviets did in 1962. When they did that, they were met with a determined response but also a flexible approach to negotiation (Kennedy did agree to dismantle several obsolete missile bases in Turkey, and basically pledged never to invade Cuba in return for the Soviet withdrawal of missiles). Does the Obama administration have the combination of toughness and shrewdness to pull off something similar? One hopes so, but there is not much evidence to support the case.

Yes, Bob Gates has brought seeming order to the Pentagon, but among his cuts to the defense bill are cuts to the very missile defenses that would thwart attacks on the US and our allies in the event of a N. Korean attack.

Ms. Clinton has gotten high marks so far, but she recently failed utterly to induce the Indians to come to the table for talks on global warming, and the dizzying array of ‘czars’; ambassadors-at-large and other layered on sets of ‘experts’ and ‘advisers’ makes one think maybe the president’s lack of management experience might be an issue in crunch time. Certainly this administration in its policy has not charted a course that has been met with any initial success; unless, one counts producing a photo op for an aged, an ailing, dictator desperate to shore up his power as a regime change looms as success.

No one wants war on the Korean peninsula, but neither can the U.S. stand for an outright and obvious defeat. What is a minor threat to us is an existential one for our Japanese and S. Korean allies. We must stand with them in defusing the situation. That precludes the bilateral US-N. Korean negotiations the hermit kingdom craves. It also calls for an ever tighter relationship with our allies in confronting N. Korea. Importantly, ‘honorary allies’ for this effort include China and Russia. Both have interests in the region, but only China has any real influence - and even that has its limits - with N. Korea.

The Obama administration is going to have to be creative and forceful to orchestrate the kind of diplomacy that’s needed. We can all hope for the best, but forgive me some skepticism. There has not been a single foreign policy triumph to date unless you want to count the fortitude and expertise of Navy Seal marksmen on the high seas - something to celebrate, but not the product of Obama foreign policy team. Meanwhile, Kim Jong Il waits, and schemes, and plans….for what? That is unknowable, but if he opts for the ‘big surprise’ as Khrushchev did four and half decades ago, we could all be in for the ride of our lives.

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.

WATCH Armstrong Williams on WICS/WICD-ABC20/ABC15 Sundays at 12:00 a.m. and WYZZ-FOX43 – Sundays at 7:00 a.m.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »