FJM Blog

By Kevin Martin

Nidal Malik Hasan faces murder charges in the shooting deaths of 12 soldiers and one civilian at Fort Hood.

His co-conspirator, “political correctness,” remains at large.  While political correctness runs amok, no one is safe.

In Hasan’s case, political correctness protected his extremism and apparently allowed it to fester until it exploded with deadly consequences.  Why?  Apparently no one wanted to be considered a bigot.  To act against Hasan would open up allegations that one was anti-Arab or anti-Muslim.

Hasan’s embrace of radical Islam - including advocacy of violent jihad and trying to contact al Qaeda terrorists - was known to fellow soldiers, people at his mosque and even our government’s intelligence community.

Lt. Colonel Val Finnell, Hasan’s classmate at the Uniformed Services University, told Fox News: “They should’ve confronted him - our professors, officers - but they were too concerned about being politically correct.”

Rather than confronting Hasan’s radicalism, his superiors passed the buck.  Walter Reed Army Medical Center sent him to Fort Hood. Fort Hood tried sending him overseas, but that set him off.

By ignoring the signs and trying to wash their hands of him, Hasan’s superiors may be nearly as guilty as Hasan himself.  It’s not the first time political correctness has been an accessory, and it likely won’t be the last.

The politically correct crowd instead speculates Hasan was burdened by the combat stories of returning soldiers he counseled as a psychiatrist.  Yet no other psychiatrist has acted out so violently. Despite his rantings and possible terrorist ties, government officials - including President Obama - are going to great lengths to say what he did was not an act of terrorism.

Rather than focusing on Hasan, the rest of America must be corrected and enlightened.  But, as Project 21 chairman Mychal Massie points out: “Political correctness threatens our security because it would have us deny the truth of the obvious.”

Political correctness can even be used to enhance the liberal agenda.  Asked his opinion on Hasan’s murderous rampage, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley (D) used Hasan’s act to launch an attack on guns.  Daley remarked: “We love guns to a point where that, uh, we see devastation on a daily basis.  You don’t blame a group.”  One can’t blame gangs or radical political or religious movements, but inanimate pieces of metal are fair game.

And it goes on.

John Allen Muhammad was recently executed in Virginia for his part in the 10 “D.C. sniper” murders of 2002.  He was discovered sleeping in his car in Baltimore by police early in his killing spree, but it is likely concern about charges of racial profiling may have led police not probing further at the time and allowing him to simply drive away.  After authorities stopped obsessing about a white van and a presumably white suspect did police once again find the black Muhammad and black accomplice Lee Boyd Malvo sleeping in the same car and brought them to justice.

Even 9/11 attacks could be blamed in part on political correctness.  How many of the hijackers who overstayed their visas did so with impunity because someone was worried about racial profiling? Indeed, what would Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-CA) - who thinks the Bush Administration knew the hijackers’ plans but did nothing - do if former Attorney General John Ashcroft had ordered federal agents to storm airliners throughout the nation that morning detaining Arabs at will?  Might there have been a call for his head for racial profiling?

As we salute and bury our dead, it is time for Americans to wake up and understand that our enemies are not allowing political correctness to get in the way of their mission of inflicting as much damage to our way of life as they can.  So it shouldn’t be a distraction to us either.

#  #  #

Kevin L. Martin is a member of the national advisory council of the Project 21 black leadership network.  Comments may be sent to Project21@nationalcenter.org.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Ken Blackwell

One of the reasons liberals are so hostile to public expressions of Christianity is because it threatens the monopoly that the religion of liberalism enjoys in the public square. The late Ted Kennedy was more than a leading senator, to liberal supporters. He was a secular saint. His appeal was essentially religious. He made it fairly explicit in his famous concession speech to the Democratic National Convention that re-nominated President Jimmy Carter. Kennedy reduced thousands of liberal delegates to tears with this emotional peroration:

May it be said of our Party in 1980 that we found our faith again.

And may it be said of us, both in dark passages and in bright days, in the words of Tennyson that my brothers quoted and loved, and that have special meaning for me now:

“I am a part of all that I have met
[Tho] much is taken, much abides
That which we are, we are –
One equal temper of heroic hearts
Strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.”

For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end.

For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.

Not for Ted Kennedy the cool rationalism of his party’s founder, Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson had famously said “if I had to go to Heaven in a political party, I would not go at all.” For Ted Kennedy and for those weeping delegates, the Democratic Party holds that place that used to be reserved for church and church alone. It’s no wonder that those teary believers—more than 90 percent of whom tell researchers they never go to church—end their search for the meaning of life in political activism.

Analyze Kennedy’s Epistle to the Gentiles and you will see that the concern, the work, the cause, the hope, the dream that is the subject of his panegyric is government. Government giveth and Government taketh away. The only Government worthy of that capital G is one that provides health, education, and welfare. All Americans are invited into the Democratic Church. Only the heretical conservatives are excluded.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi was at the Kennedy School at Harvard last week. Liberals go to Harvard the way Muslims go to Mecca. Pelosi was basking in liberal approval for having been the first Speaker to deliver on the promise of universal health care. She established her bona fides early in her sermon. “For thirty years I’ve been an advocate of single payer,” she said. Single payer is liberal speak for socialized medicine, run entirely by the state, paid for by the state. But we have to make some tactical compromises, she said. Well, there may have to be a few little detours on the road to the Heavenly Liberal City.

“We all have our theology in politics,” she said to murmurs of approval from her audience. When Gov. George W. Bush said in a Republican debate in 2000 that Jesus Christ was his favorite political philosopher, liberals were aghast. But when Nancy Pelosi speaks of “theology,” we must assume she uses the word the way Webster defines it: “the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God’s relation to the world.”

For Pelosi, God commands universal health care without a restriction on funding abortion. And God apparently also commands the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. Pelosi invoked the patron saint of San Francisco. She recited the prayer of St. Francis of Assisi. It was probably the first time in history that that gentle saint was dragged in to bless the slaughter of innocents and the abolition of matrimony.

Predictably, there were no ACLU protests. And no atheizers ran to MSNBC to deplore her breaching the Wall of Separation between Church and State.

Pelosi was perfectly free not only to preach her religious ideas, but to impose jail time and fines on those who dissent. In the Gospel According to Nancy, the liberal Preacher of the House promises to bring the liberal Heaven to Earth. Is it any wonder growing numbers of Americans think it’s a living hell?

###

Ken Blackwell is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and a visiting professor at Liberty University School of Law.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Herman Cain

In order to persuade some House Democrats who were undecided about voting for the Health Care Deform legislation (H.R. 3962) last week, President Obama resorted to name calling of those opposed to the legislation. As the New York Times reported on November 7:

According to Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who supports the health care bill, the president asked, “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit” Democratic voters “and it will encourage the extremists.”

I was personally insulted, but even more disappointed that the president would label those of us who oppose a government takeover of our health care system as teabag, anti-government and extremists. We are accustomed to name-calling by Senator Harry Reid, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Representative Barney Frank, but it lessens the office of the president when he engages in typical liberal tactics.

I will not lose any sleep over being insulted because I have been to that rodeo many times in my life. But I am extremely disappointed, for the sake of our country, that the president and the elected congressional leaders are not serious about vigorous debate, alternative solutions to problems, or even trying to solve the right problems.

One could say that the president’s remarks are just another addition to the list of broken promises by the president, such as transparency, reaching across the political aisle, allowing the public at least five days to review legislation before he signs it and helping to bring the country together instead of creating divisive tension. Alternatively, one could say that this is the real Barack Obama, who many people were hoping was not hiding behind eloquently written speeches and rhetoric.

Unfortunately, it’s both.

Contrary to the president’s suggestion, the opposition is not about bringing down health care. It is about saving health care from another government bureaucracy.

The president and the Democrats continue to dismiss what we are saying.

We reject this government power grab of our health care system. We reject the government mandates on individuals and businesses. We reject the propaganda about not adding to the deficit, and cutting Medicare without cutting services. We reject the road to a single-payer socialized health care system, which always leads to health care rationing. Overall, we reject this health care Trojan horse.

The good news is that more and more people are rejecting the policies of this administration and this Congress. According to a recent Gallup poll, the percentage of people (48 percent) who would vote for Republican candidates in November 2010 is now greater than those (44 percent) that would vote for Democrats. This is almost the exact opposite of what the results were just four months ago.

As expected, the biggest shift has come from independent registered voters. If you factor in the number of conservatives who, regrettably, stayed home last November because they did not like the Republican presidential candidate, next November could be very exciting for conservatives.

People are waking up! They are going to support candidates who they believe will do the right thing for the country, regardless of their political party affiliation. But unfortunately for most of the Democrats, they are digging themselves into a political hole with their massive big government liberal proposals in Congress.

Members of Congress who voted for the whirlwind Cap & Trade & Tax & Kill bill and/or the Health Care Deform legislation have already turned millions of voters against them. And in 2010, voters will remember in November.

Mr. President, name-calling is not going to shut us up, or make us forget.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Star Parker

Contrary to a popular fallacy that science and religion are at odds with each other, it’s quite the opposite.

Science and religion are the best of friends. And like good friends, they complement each other and produce beautiful music together.

Take the recent incident of the young woman in Bryan, Texas — the director of the Planned Parenthood abortion mill down there — who had a change of heart and quit her job when she saw, for the first time, an unborn child on an ultrasound screen.

As Abby Johnson related her story to Bill O’Reilly, “….what I saw on the screen was a 13-week baby fighting for its life.”

She walked out the door, went down the road and joined a local pro-life organization.

The discoveries and technologies that we gain from science make us more aware, confirm and help us understand even more clearly the truths that our religion and faith teach us. As result, like Abby Johnson, we become more responsible.

According to Johnson, “….Planned Parenthood really tries to instill in their employees and the women coming in for abortions that this is not a baby, that this is just a mass of cells. You know, don’t say “baby” in the clinic. Don’t say “baby” to the women coming in for an abortion. And so you begin to believe that. You begin to believe that it’s not a life.”

A recent headline in the Los Angeles Times read, “Babies are found to cry in their mother tongue.”

The article reported on just published research by French and German scientists showing that the cries of French babies start out low and increase to a high pitch and for German babies it’s the opposite — starting out high and falling. According to the scientists, these “patterns matched the intonation patterns of spoken French…and German.”

The French and German research teams say the unborn babies start hearing and picking up their mother’s language during their third trimester, a stage when, in our country, they can still be aborted. As science documents the magic of the life of the developing infant, public awareness grows and the willingness to tolerate abortion atrocities diminishes. When we understand that our unborn children are human we become more human ourselves.

Gallup polling showed recently that for the first time the majority of Americans (51 percent) are pro-life.

Science and religion get at odds when, instead of complementing, religion tries to displace science or science tries to displace religion.

Socialism is the latter. Rather than recognizing that every human being is unique and free, created in God’s image, socialism tries to turn us into laboratory rodents, pretending to manage our lives according to predictable formulas.

This, unfortunately, is what the health care bills are that the Democratic Party is now trying to force-feed to the American public. It’s why they are disasters waiting to happen.

One heroic Democratic congressman, Bart Stupak, has managed to assure that the House bill allows no taxpayer funds to pay for abortions. But many of his liberal colleagues are rebelling.

President Barack Obama said that this is “a health care bill, not an abortion bill.”

But how can it be above your pay grade to consider when life begins but not above your pay grade to define one-size-fits-all health care for several hundred million Americans and force each one to submit to your social engineering?

Taxpayers shouldn’t pay for abortions.

But in a larger sense, we won’t get health care right if we think we can do it without thinking about life itself. Science is our tool, not our master. As we sit at the brink of health care socialism, it’s a good time to recall Jefferson’s words that “God who gave us life gave us liberty.”

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Harry R. Jackson

Two weeks ago, just after the Maine’s successful reversal of the state legislature’s decision to sanction same-sex marriage, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer asked me a profound question: “Would Jesus have spent $550,000 to oppose same-sex marriage?”

The question was exactly what many secular parties had been asking in Portland, Maine, where she was speaking to me by satellite. My answer was that Jesus would have given the money to oppose same-sex marriage. My reasoning was simple: Jesus would have upheld his own teaching; refusing to be a loving, permanent enabler of a misguided local government. I mentioned in the interview that Washington, DC was struggling with the same question.

Since the interview, the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington gave notice to the DC City Council that if it approves the currently proposed same-sex marriage legislation, there will be dire consequences for the city. DC’s same-sex marriage bill undoubtedly will be passed next month. Although the bill does not require religious organizations to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings, it would require that religious charities obey new marriage laws. This could require the Catholic Archdiocese to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples. Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese explained, “If the city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular… that’s really a problem.” Gibbs noted that any religious group that receives city funds would be required to give same-sex couples healthcare benefits, open adoptions to same-sex couples, and rent church space to a support group for same-sex couples.

Catholic Charities serves 68,000 people in the city. This includes one-third of the District’s homeless people who use the city-owned shelters, which are managed by the church. All in all, Catholic Charities donates $10 million annually for its work in the capital city. If other denominations and independent churches withdraw the help, the city could be left with a gaping hole in its social safety net.

The reaction of council members has been more about protecting their stand on same-sex marriage than the city’s poor. The Washington Post, in a November 12th interview, quoted council member Mary M. Cheh as labeling the Catholic Church as “somewhat childish.” In a separate interview David A. Catania, openly gay councilman and initiator of the measure, said, “They don’t represent… an indispensable component of our social services infrastructure. If they find living under our laws so oppressive that they can no longer take city resources, the city will have to find an alternative partner to step in to fill the shoes.” Other council members have accused the church of “blackmail.”

The question of what the Catholic Church will do is being debated in every corner of the city. Washington Post reporter Petula Dvorak attempted to fan the flames of the opposition to the church’s position with these remarks on November 13th, “By trying to play political hardball with the District, no matter how carefully they word their objection to the bill, officials at the Archdiocese of Washington and Catholic Charities are telling our city’s most vulnerable people — homeless families, sick children, low-income mothers — that they are willing to throw them on the table as a bargaining chip. What the Church is doing is an uncharitable and cruel maneuver.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. The city council and its cronies are so committed to making national news that they are leaving the weakest citizens of a cash-strapped city uncovered. A popular comedian I know would make the following statement concerning the city’s projection of malfeasance upon the church, “ Don’t spit in my face and call it rain!”

Thankfully, the Catholic Church’s spokespersons are much more gracious than many of the guys and gals in the pew. For example, the Most Reverend Barry C. Knestout, Auxiliary Bishop of Washington, sent out a letter explaining the church’s actions:

“…Recent news reports have mistakenly claimed that the Archdiocese of Washington and its social services arm, Catholic Charities, are threatening to cease providing social services in the District of Columbia if the proposed bill to legalize same sex marriage is passed.

“Catholic Charities is not threatening to end its services … Catholic Charities is vowing to continue its services even if a same-sex marriage bill passes. However, the bill, as it now reads, will diminish the resources we have to do so. Why is that so? Because without a meaningful religious exemption in the bill, Catholic Charities and other similar religious providers will become ineligible for contracts, grants and licenses to continue those services.

“What we have said to the Council is this: While we are opposed to redefining marriage in the District of Columbia, if the Council moves forward to do so, we respectfully request that religious individuals and organizations be afforded protection from restrictions on their deeply held religious beliefs and that the Council preserve the ability of Catholic Charities and other providers to continue to serve the growing and unmet needs of the poor and most vulnerable residents of the District of Columbia…”

I applaud the archdiocese’s courage in making the stand articulated above.

Thinking back to my interview with Contessa Brewer, I wish I had the presence of mind to mind to answer a little more like this:

“People want the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian organizations to give their resources to the secular community when our doctrines on compassion and giving to the poor agree with their concepts and needs. Unfortunately, when our doctrines strongly contradict popular concepts, many communities want to take our money and press the mute button on our teachings. The community cannot have it both ways. If you want our help, you have to receive it on our terms.

“Finally, the biblical Jesus, who confronted both the political and religious hypocrites of his day, would never let himself be blackmailed into becoming a permanent agent of any corrupt government.”

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Ken Blackwell

Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker has written a powerful commentary today on the appalling issue of forced abortion in China. Miss Parker interviewed Reggie Littlejohn, a women’s rights activist, who testified at yesterday’s hearings on Capitol Hill.

Reggie Littlejohn is a petite woman who heads Women’s Rights Without Frontiers. Attorney Littlejohn gave up a profitable practice to work for human rights.

Dr. Littlejohn showed how China’s brutal policy actually works. Women in China pregnant with their second or third “unauthorized” child, are rounded up and harassed until they submit to abortion–even in the eighth or ninth month. Estimates range as high as 50 million a year. China’s communist rulers claim it’s all voluntary. Littlejohn knows better. She provided congressional members of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission with incontrovertible evidence that forced abortion is official government policy and that it is widespread.

Dr. Littlejohn is calling upon Planned Parenthood and NARAL to speak up for the women of China who are daily denied their rights. She also hopes President Obama will raise the issue of human rights when he visits Asia this week.

What Reggie Littlejohn will learn is what Stephen Mosher learned more than 25 years ago. Steve Mosher was a young researcher from Stanford University. He was studying village life in rural China.

Then, Steve was “pro-choice.” But he discovered–in fact he was the first Westerner to discover–the way pregnant Chinese women were rounded up, thrown roughly into open trucks, hauled off to abortion centers by Communist Party cadres, and yelled at and stressed until they agreed to have abortions.

Steve was shocked by this denial of choice to these women. So he went public. He wrote about this story. He was promptly thrown out of China. And Beijing threatened Stanford University: If you want to send any more graduate students to China, you had better expel Steve Mosher. Stanford, you’ll remember, was the home of Jesse Jackson-led demonstrations in which student protestors chanted: “Hey hey, Ho ho, Western Civ has got to go.” Western Civilization was expelled from Stanford and so was Stephen Mosher. He was found to have violated rules passed by the Stanford faculty senate after he departed for China.

Steve Mosher thought Planned Parenthood and NARAL would rise to his defense. They didn’t.

And I seriously doubt they will be heard from now. We’ve heard precious little from them about China’s obvious, aggravated, denial of choice to Chinese women. Mosher did get a nice editorial in the New York Times tsk-tsking forced abortions in China. The Times, we should be reminded, is not unlike Winston Churchill’s description of Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin: “He occasionally stumbles over the truth, but he picks himself up and proceeds as if nothing had happened.

So it will be with President Obama. Reggie Littlejohn hopes the President will raise the issue with the Chinese. He won’t. We read in Kathleen Parker’s column about Chinese doctors sending emails back and forth describing the terrible problem of infants born alive after induced labor abortions. Senior party members advise puncturing their skulls as they are in the birth canal to avoid such dreaded complications.

Anyone who expects Barack Obama to raise this issue with Chinese officials is whistling in the dark. Barack Obama as Illinois state senator led the opposition to the Infant Born Alive Protection Act. He later said he would have voted for the bill if it had been like the one that passed at the federal level. Except that it was.

Of course, the world’s Number One enabler of China’s forced abortion policy is President Obama. He hesitated not at all last January before revoking the Mexico City policy initiated by President Reagan. After January 23rd, we are all forced to back abortion. Our tax dollars are backing the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) and International Planned Parenthood. Between financial support for China’s brutality and a bailout of the world’s largest abortion provider, Obama has claimed the crown as the world’s premier abortion backer. Maybe that’s why he won the Peace Prize.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
2 Comments »

By Deneen Borelli

It’s time to kick those expensive kicks, black Americans.  Nike and Timberland aren’t working in your best interests.

Saying goodbye won’t be hard to do since these companies want to eventually make it impossible to afford their shoes.

Nike and Timberland are affiliated with the Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy (BICEP) coalition, which wants to unilaterally impose a risky “cap-and-trade” regulatory scheme on our nation.  This would raise prices on virtually everything, with costs falling the hardest on those who can least afford it.

To disrespect consumers in this way is reason enough to take your business elsewhere, but it gets worse.  While asking us to tighten our belts, these companies are going to be making their shoes in countries where they can skirt the laws they want enforced here.

Essentially, cap-and-trade is a tax on fossil fuels.  Businesses, in theory, will convert to alternative energy sources rather than pay higher costs for oil, coal and natural gas.

With wind turbines and solar panels in short supply right now, future suffering is inevitable. President Obama realizes this, noting in January of 2008 that “under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”  He also casually noted that affected businesses “will pass that money on to consumers.”

A study released by the National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC) also suggests cap-and-trade could kill more than 2.7 million jobs a year through 2030.  The liberal Brookings Institution paints no better picture - estimating 1.7 million would be lost annually.

Additionally, the NBCC study says cap-and-trade would reduce the American GDP by $350 billion a year and cost the average worker around $400 while consumer prices rise.

The little guy will suffer most.  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office noted “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.”

Under cap-and-trade, a policy desired by President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Nike and Timberland, it seems the rich will get richer while the poor get poorer.

Nike and Timberland wouldn’t feel the real pain of cap-and-trade restrictions.  The proposal their BICEP coalition wants applies only to the United States.  Nike makes a good deal of footwear in places such as South Korea and Vietnam. Those countries will not be affected.  Timberland makes shoes in China - another country not willing to inflict cap-and-trade on itself.

Nike recently resigned from the board of directors of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to protest the business organization’s opposition to the Obama-Pelosi-Reid cap-and-trade scheme.  The Chamber, however, is not opposed to regulating carbon dioxide emissions as much as imposing cap-and-trade restrictions unilaterally.  The Chamber is worried about the United States losing its ability to compete. Nike and Timberland seem to have put their own interests ahead of America’s.

Placing environmental desires before economic recovery is unpopular.  A recent Public Strategies’ poll found 62 percent of respondents say economic recovery is a higher priority than environmental protection.  A National Center for Public Policy Research-commissioned poll of black Americans found 76 percent held similar views.

In promoting his company’s cap-and-trade policy on the environmental web site Grist, Timberland CEO Jeff Swartz noted “Consumers can now discriminate.”  And they should.  In the face of Timberland, Nike and other companies’ disregard for their customers’ economic well-being, they don’t deserve your hard-earned money.

Many black Americans put a great deal of value on the shoes they wear, but Nike and Timberland don’t appear to put a lot of value in them.  Black Americans should return the favor and buy elsewhere.

#  #  #

Deneen Borelli is a fellow for the Project 21 black leadership network.  Comments may be sent to DBorelli@nationalcenter.org.

Note: New Visions Commentaries reflect the views of their author, and not necessarily those of Project 21.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Harry R. Jackson, Jr

Last week was a milestone in modern American political history. The election results (New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races) and the battle over healthcare show that the nation’s interest in social issues has not waned. New coalitions are forming around the pivotal legislative concerns of our day. From my vantage point, I am noticing a passion among individual citizens to engage in the political process - whether the topic is the economy, healthcare, or gay marriage. The average citizen wants not just to express their opinion, but also has become savvy in engaging the powers that be. The insight of these new activists is shown in their ability to organize and get results. Over 20,000 people came to DC last week to voice their concerns about healthcare.

On Tuesday, I was personally focused on the battle for marriage in Maine. It’s old news that heterosexual marriage proponents were outspent by their adversaries who sent thousands of volunteers to wage “political war” in the tiny state. Considered intensely liberal and the most likely place where same-sex marriage advocates had a chance of winning, the nation was shocked at the resounding defeat of gay marriage advocates.

Like California, Maine upheld the common sense definition of marriage after same-sex “marriage” was forced into law against the will of its people. The vote on Question 1 upheld marriage by the exact same margin as the vote on Proposition 8 (5 full percentage points), even though the pro-marriage campaign in Maine was outspent by millions.

The victory of traditional marriage proponents was very convincing with success in 75% of Maine’s counties (12 of 16). More Maine residents voted for marriage (266,000+) than voted for Governor Baldacci (209,927) when he got elected in 2006. Importantly, in the state capital of Augusta, the definition of marriage was upheld by marriage advocates (53% to 46%).

The press repeatedly asked me what the implications were of the Maine marriage victory. First of all, the victory shows that the gay marriage activist projection of inevitability is false. The inevitability argument has been levied so that marriage defenders would quietly give up. Further, the inevitability argument has given many legislators “cover,” as they vehemently oppose the will of the people. State senators or city council members often have been led to believe that someday their stand will be seen as heroic instead of socially destructive. If the inevitability argument were correct, there would be no political consequences to voting based on pressure from powerful, well-financed gay marriage activists.

Fortunately for the nation, same-sex marriage is not a done deal. The concept is not gaining real ground among the common people. The famed Pew Research Center made the following observation last month, “An August 2009 … survey finds that 53% oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, compared with 39% who support same-sex marriage, numbers that are virtually unchanged over the past year.”

The fact that the nation has not changed its mind about same-sex marriage during the last year is very revealing. Same-sex marriage advocates have made a lot of headway during the last few years in convincing a small number of powerfully positioned judges and legislators that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue. Their arguments among the elite have been effective, while the average citizen is not willing to endorse changing the institution of marriage as an expression of civil rights.

This is especially obvious when one considers the history of the Maine same-sex marriage advocacy efforts. Legalization of same-sex marriage has been intensely pursued for at least five years in this state that is bordered by Canada and New Hampshire, both who have legalized same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage foot soldiers put everything they had into their effort - they developed 20 field offices manned by 30 paid staffers and raised substantially more money than traditional marriage advocates. Their efforts were supported by both national and local grassroots support. The pro same-sex marriage team was sophisticated and well trained. The hallmark of their sophistication was that they recruited an elaborate network of phone volunteers that interacted with Maine citizens, thinking that a personal “sales call” would close the deal. Despite the time, money, and energy spent, Maine residents did not buy the marriage pitch. Ironically, exactly the same percentage number of voters opposed same-sex marriage in Maine as the national research said opposed it - 53%.

Specifically, what does this mean for the DC struggle concerning marriage? It’s no secret that the city council has vowed to act without consulting the citizens. Their reasoning is simple. They have read the same polls everyone else has, yet they are so beholding to gay marriage lobbyists that they must make this issue their most pressing policy concern…more pressing than healthcare, the economy, the horrible disorganization of DC public schools and a host of other ills that plague the nation’s capital. The council realizes that if a vote on same-sex marriage will not fly in Maine with its predominately white, liberal residents, there is no chance for it to prosper in the District of Columbia where 56% of its citizens are black.

In the near term, gay activists have already started attacking President Obama because he did not come to their aid in Maine. This is an unwise move because of the president’s openness to the civil rights claims of gays. Further, it was their strategy that failed in Maine and no one else is to blame.

The pro traditional marriage groups in DC are encouraged by the grassroots efforts which have led to reversing a bad law that was passed by an out-of-control group of legislators. They will undoubtedly attempt to increase voter registration in the District, recalling willful council members, and electing new political leaders. Pro marriage groups in DC, under the banner of Stand4MarriageDC.com, have already built one the strongest, most diverse religious coalitions in the city’s history. Last summer a large number of secular and community leaders also awakened to the call to stop the advance of same-sex marriage.

It may take a year or so, but there will be a vote to recognize only marriages between a man and a woman in Washington, DC. When that vote occurs the people will reject same-sex marriage - once and for all.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
1 Comment »

By Lisa Fritsch

One word comes to mind for describing Barack Obama’s tenure since last year’s election: indifference.

It’s a vast contrast from the ” hope” and “change” Obama peddled to voters on the campaign trail.  It’s not that he doesn’t aspire to hope or change.  It’s just that his definitions seems to have little to do with the desires most of the rest of the American people.

He knows his ideas are unpopular, yet President Obama remains stubbornly indifferent to the voices of his consituency.  He is petulant toward dissenting voices.

Whether it is health care reform, the chase for the Olympics, the war in Afghanistan or the “stimulus” package, Obama clearly believes his agenda is more important than the will of the American people.

Health care reform is the most obvious example.   Satisfaction in personal health care quality and coverage ranges between 88 percent and 67 percent in recent polls.  Yet Obama wants to fundamentally change it under the guise of making it better.  And, despite health care falling behind the economy and the war in Afghanistan in public importance, Obama puts it at the top of his to-do list.  He also appears nonchalant about the huge deficits and peril such a plan will inflict on our economy.

Obama ignored the rallies and town halls where so many Americans loudly spoke out against a costly and untimely government takeover of a sixth of the economy.  It is not the change he craves.

Then there is Obama’s “dithering” on Afghanistan.  After campaigning on a platform of making Afghanistan a priority, it was recently revealed he met only twice with his commander in the field there during the first six month of General Stanley McChrystal’s tenure. He gave a thumbs-up to the fraud-plagued presidential election there.  Commanders now wait for Obama to decide on a request to send in reinforcements.

It makes Obama’s recent late-night trip to Dover to meet returning caskets seem callous.  He must work with General McCrystal as often as necessary, support the mission wholeheartedly, and protect the soldiers already there.

Finally, Obama’s quest to bring the Olympics to his adoptive hometown of Chicago seemed more personal than altruistic.  With the public already skeptical of “stimulus” spending, why did he believe Americans wanted to subsidize an international sporting event as well?

As the International Olympic Committee was coming to its decision, 16-year-old Derrion Albert was savagely murdered as he walked home from school on Chicago’s South Side. He was beaten to death by fellow students for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.  Classmates stood and watched, failing to help or even be mortified.  Some even cheered.

Michelle Obama is from the South Side.  President Obama has implied he cares deeply for the area where he began his community oranizing career.  So why did he show such grave indifference by flying off to Denmark to sell Chicago when Chicago needed him?

Shouldn’t a President who preaches hope and change have recognized the fierce need of his very own community for his presence and involvement?  Instead, too late, the White House dispensed Attorney General Eric Holder and Education Secretary Arne Duncan to meet with local leaders at the ritzy Four Seasons hotel downtown.

Americans admire the symbol of hope and change our President portrayed on the campaign trail.  Americans respect his path to the presidency.  More and more, however, this respect seems one-sided.

A love affair should always have two sides, not just one.  How much longer do the American people have to wait for this President to actually fall in love with us?

#  #  #

Lisa Fritsch is a member of the national advisory council for the Project 21 black leadership network and a writer and radio talk show host in Austin, Texas.  Comments may be sent to Project21@nationalcenter.org.

Note: New Visions Commentaries reflect the views of their author, and not necessarily those of Project 21.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
1 Comment »

By Herman Cain

There’s an old saying about a glass being half empty or half full. The optimist will view it as half full, while the pessimist will say it is half empty.

But when the glass is nearly empty and it’s called “nearly full”, or a big success, that’s pure political propaganda. The danger with political propaganda is that it borders on just plain lies, exaggerations or intended deceptions.

President Obama and the Democrats told the public in February that they needed to pass the $787 billion stimulus bill to keep the unemployment rate under 8 percent. The rate has increased in an almost vertical fashion every month since then, and the Labor Department reported last Friday that October’s rate hit 10.2 percent.

President Obama’s response to the report was that “I will not rest until all Americans who want work can find work.” With all due respect Mr. President, you will not get any rest for a long time because spending and debt do not create jobs.

I know it’s a long shot and your people may not show it to you, but I suggested a plan that would make you look like an economic hero.

President Obama also said he would not sign a health care bill that adds one dime to the deficit. In order for the House Democrats to pretend to get to “not one dime” they low-balled the cost at $894 billion by shifting some items elsewhere, disguising the tax increases, and assuming unrealistic cuts in Medicare. The real cost is $1.5 trillion at least, and no government social program in history has ever hit “at least.”

Speaker Pelosi recently echoed President Obama’s remark that “health care reform is entitlement reform, which is essential to lowering the deficit.” Wow! Really!

They are proposing to spend $1.5 trillion over 10 years on a new social program that looks like Medicare’s ugly twin sister containing over 50 new layers of bureaucracy, and somehow it is going to magically reform Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, and reduce the deficit at the same time. Right!

And I can fly.

The latest propaganda is the administration’s claim about “jobs created or saved” as a result of the $787 billion “stimulus bill”. Edward Lazear explained in the Wall Street Journal the emptiness of that claim. The article is titled “Jobs ‘created or saved’ is meaningless. What matters is net job gain or loss, and that means the unemployment rate.” Oops!

The third quarter positive GDP growth of 3.5 percent is great news, but the recession is not over. Cash for Clunkers generated a net increase of about 125,000 new cars, but it did not single-handedly turn around the automobile market. And whereas a few hundred thousand home buyers took advantage of “free money” from the government on their first home purchase, the real estate and housing markets are still a long way from being poised for sustained growth.

Although the administration and Democrats want to dismiss the gubernatorial election results in Virginia and New Jersey last week, and the near victory of an unknown conservative in the 23^rd Congressional District of New York, the decline in confidence and trust is already being reflected at the ballot box.

That’s great news!

People are not buying the media spin, and they are rejecting the propaganda. More people are getting off their sofas and getting informed, involved and engaged in fighting against how the liberals in Washington are trying to change this country with propaganda and ineffective policy.

We the people will not be dismissed, and we are not running on empty.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »