FJM Blog

For Release: January 21, 2010
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org

Washington, DC - Members of the Project 21 black leadership group are condemning remarks today by Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) comparing today’s Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to the Dred Scott case.

The decision in Citizens United eases certain restrictions on the free speech of businesses, associations, organized labor and certain advocacy groups with regard to their participation in political campaigns.  In response, Grayson said: “This is the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case.”

In the 1857 Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court ruled that black Americans who were either slaves or the descendants of slaves could not be, and never had been, be U.S. citizens.  The decision, formally known as Scott v. Sandford, also invalidated the 1820 Missouri Compromise, which prohibited slavery in portions of U.S. territories in the west.

Project 21 members said:

Bishop Council Nedd II: “In Dred Scott, the Court equated people with property.  The Court’s decision today was about giving people a voice.  There is no correlation between the two.  Congressman Grayson needs to apologize.  His flippant and unenlightened statement offends me personally, and it disrespects generations of black people who suffered from slavery.” (Council Nedd II is the bishop of the Chesapeake and the Northeast for the Episcopal Missionary Church.)

Horace Cooper: “Where has Representative Alan Grayson been?  He compares today’s landmark decision - in which free speech trumps FEC restrictions - to the awful ruling that black people are nothing more than property.  He’s off base yet again.  It’s more than a little ironic that Democrats praised Dred Scott when it was handed down over a hundred years ago, yet now stand opposed to fundamental freedoms such as free speech today.”  (Horace Cooper is a former visiting assistant professor at the George Mason University School of Law.)

Ellis Washington: “As a black man, I am outraged that Representative Grayson would equate the bondage of slavery with today’s Court ruling extending freedom of speech to businesses and corporations in the political process, and having the courage to bring modern jurisprudence in line with the guarantees of the Constitution. In other words, the Court held that money equals speech and radio shows, media entities and corporations equal people.  The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech for everyone!”  (Ellis Washington is a former editor of the Michigan Law Review.)

In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: “Our nation’s speech dynamic is changing, and informative voices should not have to circumvent onerous restrictions to exercise their First Amendment rights.  The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach.”

Project 21, established in 1992, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research (http://www.nationalcenter.org).

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Lisa Fritsch

Bravo for President Obama for shunning the race card.

Many have condemned Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) for the revelation that he marveled at Obama’s light skin and lack of a “Negro dialect” back in 2008.  Obama took the high road.  He immediately forgave Reid.

Why should Obama be offended?  He is well-spoken.  He is light-skinned.  And, by now, he is undoubtedly thick-skinned.

But, no matter how kind and gracious it is to forgive Reid for his “poor choice of words,” one should be mindful of the sort of character revealed by them. It’s not what Reid said about Obama, his coloring or his dialect as much as how Reid’s comments relate to the dignity and the integrity of black Americans as a whole.

What’s troubling is that Reid seems to have thought then-senator Obama would only be successful because he was “light-skinned” and had “no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

Surely, Reid must know most blacks are now repulsed by the term Negro.  It’s primitive and offensive.  He certainly seemed to understand this in October of 2008 when he scolded Las Vegas talk show host Casey Hendrickson for making it racial to link Obama and disgraced former Fannie Mae executive Franklin Raines.

In rebutting any relationship between the presidential candidate and the former Clinton Administration cabinet member, Reid said, “The only connection… is they both are African-American, other than that there is nothing.” Raines, by the way, is fairly light-skinned, too.

Why did Reid use African-American and not Negro?

He obviously didn’t use Negro in public for the same reason Michelle Kwan would never be called Oriental, George Takei isn’t a Jap and Joe Lieberman is never referred to as a Jew.  Reid knows that identifying with certain markers can underscore and imply much more than a person’s ethnicity and character.

Though still accepted by some blacks, Negro was used at an ugly and divisive time in our nation’s history.  Negro is old school - linked to a world hostile towards blacks.  Negroes were second-class citizens, largely undereducated and vastly oppressed.

Harry Reid seems to understand this, and therefore should know better than to use the word Negro - unless he really means it.

And what is this “Negro dialect” Reid speaks of?  It is a dialect of an oppressed and uneducated people. It is a dialect of suffering and struggle.  It is a dialect that Obama can apparently turn on and off like a faucet, depending on his audience.

These incidents indicate Reid understands when and where to use racially titillating lingo.  Thus, in the company of friends, Obama and black Americans can be called Negroes.  Publicly, blacks are elevated to the gentrified African-Americans.

Why, thankya good-suh massa, Reid.

As far as Reid’s implication that it would be important for a successful black presidential candidate to speak properly, he makes a valid point.  Blacks would be remiss to support an inarticulate representative of their race.  What hurts is that Reid suggests there are times when speaking with a Negro dialect - as only a true Negro would - might be useful.

In all the ways Reid could have complimented Obama, he chose to look beyond the future president’s character and focused on divisive, archaic stereotypes.

Reid had a “poor choice of words,” but it was a lack of words that he didn’t use in defining Obama that is troubling.  Reid apparently never mentioned character, experience, wisdom or intelligence - instead fixating on a non-Negro dialect and the hue of his skin.

Someone recently reminded me of an old quote from my grandmother that is perfect for Reid’s behavior: “A new broom knows how to clean up the mess; an old broom knows where to find the dirt.”

Yessuh, massa Reid, you an ol’, duhty broom!

# #  #

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.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Armstrong Williams

Nonunion workers of America unite and defeat health care reform legislation before you are screwed.

President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Read, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the leaders of the Democratic Congress have negotiated a health care compromise which screws nonunion American workers.  Under the terms of the compromise, Cadillac health insurance plans for unionized and government employees will be exempt from a 40% tax on these rich plans.  However, the 40% tax will be paid on identical plans provided to nonunionized private sector employees.   This compromise will add about $60 billion to the costs of the pending health care reform legislation. It is an understatement to say that this compromise is grossly unfair to nonunion American workers and is a national scandal to payoff the political allies of the Democratic Party.

The union bosses who agreed to this compromise should be ashamed of their hypocrisy toward American workers.  Union leaders have once again shown that they care more about their power and influence in the Democratic Party than they do about American workers.  It is no wonder that the labor union movement in the United States has been declining for decades. American workers in the private sector have long recognized organized labor’s Faustian bargain with the Democratic Party and have been abandoning the labor movement.  Unions represent 9% of the private sector workers today compared to a high of 36% in 1945.

Americans need to take a serious look at how the Democrats controlling the White House and Congress are abusing their power and ignoring the will of the people in the name of health care reform.  The Cadillac insurance tax exemption is only the most recent bribe to a reluctant constituency that Congressional Democratic leaders have concocted to pass unpopular health care reform.  A number of other bribes have surfaced from closed congressional negotiations over the past several weeks.

The “Cornhusker Kickback” negotiated by Democratic Senator Nelson of Nebraska unfairly exempted his state from future unfunded Medicare and Medicaid mandates generated by the health care reform legislation. These as yet undisclosed costs estimated to be in the billions of dollars will be paid by the taxpayers of the remaining 49 states.  Senator Nelson negotiated such a sweet heard deal for his constituents that a majority of the voters of Nebraska are embarrassed at their senator’s unconscionable fleecing of their fellow Americans.

In the “Louisiana Purchase,” Democratic Senator Landrieu sold her vote for a $300 million aide package.  Louisiana, like the other 48 states (excluding Nebraska), will incur a huge unfunded mandated expenses from Medicare and Medicare if the health care legislation is passed.  The state will have to fund these expenses with additional taxes without additional federal revenue.  ($300 million is not enough to prevent state tax increases.)  Yes, President Obama may literally keep his promise not to raise Federal taxes on Americans making less than $250,000, but he is breaching the spirit of his promise by forcing the states to raise taxes to pay for his unfunded federal health care mandates.  America got a much better deal in the original Louisiana Purchase.  The taxpayers of Louisiana will realize that they did not get such a good deal in Landrieu’s Louisiana Purchase when the state has to increase taxes to pay for health care reform.

Poor Senator Dodd of Connecticut sold his vote for a mere $100 million university health facility.  He was such a poor negotiator that he decided not to seek reelection rather than have his constituents unceremoniously fire him.

These unconscionable political deals using your taxpayer dollars are the tip of the iceberg.  Michigan got a deal to exempt Michigan Blue Cross from the insurance company tax.  Florida, Pennsylvania and New York got a deal to protect their Medicare Advantage beneficiaries.  Vermont got $10 Billion for health centers. If President Obama had not breached his campaign promises to put these negotiations on C-span, undoubtly more of these deals would be exposed for American voters to review and accept or reject.

Fortunately, this legislation is not the fait de complis that many of us thought on Christmas Eve.  Out of left field, Massachusetts State Senator Scott Brown is creating a tsunami in the health care debate.  In the special election on Tuesday to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, Democratic candidate Attorney General Martha Coakley was expected to blow away Brown in the most reliable blue state in the nation where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by three to one.  Several weeks ago, Coakley led Brown in the polls by 19 points.  Today the race is a dead heat.  The game changer was Brown’s promise to be the 41^st vote in the US Senate against the pending health care reform legislation.  If Brown wins the election, this health care legislation is DOA.

Do not expect President Obama’s visit to the Bay State on Sunday to help Coakley gather white working class votes.  The president tore his britches with this group of voters when he said the Cambridge police acted “Stupidly” in arresting African-American Harvard professor Louis Gates for talking back to the cops.  While the Massachusetts white working class usually votes predictably for Democrats, they tend to be law and order Democrats and are not particularly tolerant on racial issues.  Coakley took a huge risk in having Obama come to the Bay State.

Even if Brown looses the race, he would have sent a resonating message to Blue Dog and moderate Democrats.  If they want to keep their seats, they should vote against this legislation.  Americans do not want this corrupt version of health care reform.  According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 55% of Americans are against this legislation and only 40% are in favor .

Nonunion private sector workers will not benefit from the Democrat’s health care reform legislation.  They are being used by the Democratic Party and the labor unions to finance this health care legislation with the Cadillac health care tax.  Their state taxes will increase because of unfunded Medicare and Medicaid mandates placed on the states.  Federal taxes will eventually increase to pay for the disclosed and undisclosed deals in this legislation for special interest groups and to buy votes. Even if their federal taxes are not directly increased, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and medical providers will pass on their increased federal taxes to their customers in the form of higher prices. Worker’s health care will not improve and the cost of their health care will not decline as a result of this legislation.

Nonunion private sector working Americans are the key to turning the tide on this health care legislation.  If they live in Massachusetts, they can vote for Brown on Tuesday or stay home if they cannot pull the lever for a Republican.  If they live in the other 49 states, they need to contact their congressmen and  and senators with a clear message – “Kill This Health Care Legislation.”  The Democrats will listen to American workers now and kill the bill or loose their jobs in November.

www.armstrongwilliams.com

Williams can be heard nightly on Sirius/XM Power 169  9pm - 10pm est.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Harry R. Jackson, Jr.

Transforming America’s racial and cultural dynamics is a lot like running a marathon. The only major differences are time and course. The grueling 26.2 miles of a marathon is run in just over two hours by world-class athletes, while the race toward King’s dream has already been over 50 years in the making. Although we have some sense of the finish line, the end of our course is not in sight. Further, it is hard to judge our progress. We are not sure whether we should count certain “firsts” as significant. Others believe that the depth of professional penetration by blacks, Hispanics, or other groups into various professional arenas is a more appropriate measure of entering a post-racial era.

For example, milestones like the number of black quarterbacks in the National Football League are informative, but how should it be compared to how many black CEOs lead Fortune 100 companies? In this regard, all of us seem prone to measure apples against oranges. My mother’s generation of 80-year olds simply beams with pride at the progress, while regretting the state of so many black youth and children. In her mind, the Bible verse that says, “What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and to lose his soul” is prominent.

Has black America come so close to the dream and annihilation at the same time? Are we on the verge of the ultimate success or the pursuing the ultimate illusion - by chasing the fool’s gold of hedonism? As an African American, I believe that some folks have run the race successfully (they have survived) but they are also in danger of being disqualified.

Let me explain.

The most recent Pew Research polls on race are exceptionally encouraging. Most people see a “convergence” of both black and white values. More specifically the report reads as follows, “Seven-in-ten whites (70%) and six-in-ten blacks (60%) say that the values held by blacks and whites have become more similar in the past 10 years.” This is a little shocking given the fact that two years ago Pew Research studies had blacks themselves self-identifying as two different black communities - the under-privileged/under-achievers, and the aspiring, upwardly mobile blacks. This kind of conflicting self-identification was the source of conflict within schools for teenagers and young adults. Under -achievers would call motivated kids “white,” while promoting “the thug culture” and gangster rap music as authentically “black.”

The second most surprising aspect of the 2009 Pew Research analysis on race is that a majority of blacks (56%) feel as though the “standard of living gap” between whites and blacks has narrowed in the past decade. Since blacks feel that way, it is understandable that nearly two-thirds of whites (65%) also believe that the “standard of living gap” is lessening. Unfortunately, Pew pointed out that actual income numbers do not support the feel of progress that both races celebrated. In 2008, black household income was only 61.8 percent of white household income. This means for $1,000 of annual income white families make only $618 of income comes to black families.

Teamed with the optimism about the standard of living, an amazing attitudinal change has emerged among blacks about why they often don’t get ahead. The survey says that 15 years ago, most blacks would have said that race was the reason they did not get ahead. Yet gradually over time, black opinions have shifted to the concept that getting ahead in the US is mainly their own responsibility. In fact in 2009, a whooping 52% are no longer willing to make racial prejudice an excuse for black under-achievement.

Further, the one-drop test is no longer the method of determining the race of a person. This concept led to many mixed-race people having to hide their black ancestry, lest they get shut out of business and social opportunities. This entire generation sees a category called “mixed race.” Using President Obama as a model, researchers showed that 61% of Hispanics see him as mixed race versus 39% who see the president as black. Among whites, 53% say that he is mixed race, while only one out of four see him as black. Finally, even among blacks just 55% (a majority) see the president as black, while 34% see him as mixed race.

As we celebrate the birth of Dr. Martin Luther King, the question of objective measures of our social progress is especially poignant. I am concerned that blacks and other minorities may have reached an all time high in race relations but are in danger of losing the inner assets of character, faithfulness, and commitment to family, which have made them and their struggle so noble in the last generation.

I would hate to see blacks regress like they did right after the Reconstruction Period following the Civil War. You may remember this season in which there were numerous black elected officials and unprecedented achievement followed by hatred, lynchings, and eventually Jim Crow laws. No, I am not concerned about a white backlash against blacks. I am more concerned about black kids that think that the murder of Emmit Till is an unimaginable story … or others that feel that they are entitled to a living or respect and recognition. For these reasons, my mother, wife, and daughters have educated and trained themselves arduously to be educators. This is why we are upping our local church’s investment in daycare facilities, early childhood development, and parental involvement.

We must run this race with patience and a sense of honor, knowing that we are standing on the shoulders of giants. Eleven years ago I ran my first marathon. It was for charity and the proceeds of my fund raising went to HIV/AIDS research with the famed Whitman Walker Clinic. I loved the training, my workout partners, and the amazing opportunity to accomplish the athletic feat of a lifetime.

There was only one problem with this quest for significance. Even though I had raised the money in advance, I had to finish the race. During my first marathon, I reached the 18th mile or so and felt like I could not finish the rest of the race. This place in the race is called “the wall.” Just when I almost stopped and told myself the leg cramps and pain were not worth it, an injured friend who had been unable to run that race appeared on the sidelines. Just hearing his voice inspired me; I felt that I was running for him, too. I pushed past the pain, the cramps, and the lack of focus.

As we honor Dr. King on his holiday, we pray today for a new field of civil rights marathoners who will run their race with honor and courage.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

For Release: January 19, 2010
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 or e-mail project21@nationalcenter.org

Washington, D.C.: Black conservatives affiliated with the Project 21 leadership network are speaking out about the stunning victory of Republican state senator Scott Brown over Democrat state attorney general Martha Coakley in Massachusetts.

Kevin L. Martin: “Scott Brown’s victory in the bluest of traditionally blue states can only be viewed as a complete loss of confidence in the policies of the Obama White House and its allies in Congress. People have tasted the fruits of a government dominated by liberal ideologues and they’ve not found it to their liking. What remains to be seen is if this repudiation has been heard and understood. Will Obama, Pelosi and Reid see the writing on the wall, or will they continue their heavy-handed attempts to ram through their agenda against the will of the people?”

Horace Cooper: “Yesterday’s victory by State Senator Brown is reminiscent of the upset off-year elections of 1994. Then, the Democrats could have seen the results for what they were - a repudiation of big government liberalism - but they refused. As someone who worked on the Hill while these races were happening, you have to wonder if this time they’ll get the message before it’s too late.”

Bob Parks: “As someone who ran - and lost - in Massachusetts, it’s great to see a conservative win there. While Massachusetts Republicans and independents can enjoy their well-earned opportunity to gloat, they can also revel in the fact they did the impossible in an impossible state. And let’s hope leaders in Washington realize that the people responded to a conservative message - not one of moderation.”

Ellis Washington: “In Massachusetts, the site of the first tea party in 1773 and the renewed tax revolts of 2009, citizen defiance may have saved our republic. The stakes could not have been higher for the Obama Administration and congressional liberals in this special election. This may be the day in which it is guaranteed that Barack Obama will be a one-term president. Scott Brown’s election will help America take a giant step toward renewed freedom and liberty. It bodes well for renewing American exceptionalism, market capitalism and the protection of personal property and sacred inalienable rights.”

Project 21, established in 1992, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research (http://www.nationalcenter.org).

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Star Parker

Again, this January 22, hundreds of thousands of pro-life Americans will converge on Washington for the March for Life. The March has taken place every year since 1974 to protest the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision on January 22, 1973, which legalized abortion.

Good news for pro-lifers is that 2009 showed evidence of turnaround in national sentiment toward tolerance for abortion. Two Gallup polls, one done in May and one done in August, showed higher percentages identifying as “pro-life” than “pro-choice.” The opposite had been true in all previous years since Gallup first started doing this survey in 1995.

But the bad news is that another year has gone by as our nation allowed more than a million innocent unborn children to be brutally murdered — some fifty million since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.

It somehow doesn’t compute that we are horrified watching the bloodbath that has occurred in Haiti, the result of the cold, inscrutable hand of nature. Yet we are willing to tolerate the ongoing holocaust that takes place in our own country — a holocaust perpetrated by conscious human choice.

When I wrote about this last year, President Obama was only a few days past his inauguration. He declined the invitation of March for Lifers to address them, an invitation which his predecessor accepted each year.

He only issued a statement noting the Roe v. Wade decision, saying: “… We are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters.”

So, let’s not for a minute lose perspective that this President sees abortion as health care.

And let’s appreciate the irony that under this President’s leadership, we are close to enacting health care legislation that will “intrude on our most private family matters” perhaps more than any legislation in this nation’s history. Every American family, and every unmarried American, will be forced to purchase a government designed health insurance policy or pay a fine or go to jail.

Constitutional scholars and state attorney generals nationwide are lining up challenging the constitutionality of this legislation.

Meanwhile, as Mr. Obama and his Democrat cohorts on Capitol Hill — alleged champions of “choice” — engineer this massive government intrusion on how every American chooses to conduct his or her private affairs, they have pushed open the door for federal dollars to pay for abortion.

As Dr. Jane Orient, a physician in private practice, and also the Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons writes: “The bills passed by the House and the Senate eliminate a vast array of choices that many Americans prefer, such as low-cost insurance. But the most precious choice they destroy is the right to choose life: the right to choose not to support abortion in any way. Not financially, with taxes or premiums. And not by providing hands, facilities, referrals, prescriptions, or permission to perform or enable this “procedure.”

Democrats are pushing us in a perverse direction. They want to deny our personal freedoms while expanding our capability to murder our unborn children.

When Barack Obama read his Roe v. Wade declaration last January, his approval ratings stood at 70 percent. Today they are barely 50 percent. A new CNN poll shows 48 percent saying that Obama’s first year was a failure, 47 percent saying it was a success.

Obama is presiding over a deeply divided nation. As Lincoln said, “A House divided against itself cannot stand.”

Americans have choices to make.

On this week of the March for Life, let’s recall the words of Deuteronomy: “…..I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.”

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Herman Cain

President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid,and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are buying votes in Congress to pass a Health Care “Deform” bill that the majority of the American people do not want. It is a dishonest and abusive use of power and taxpayer dollars.

They have gone beyond the usual practice of “earmarks” in proposed legislation to reward legislators with special dollars to send home in exchange for their votes. And they have gone beyond the typical special favors hidden in the tax code, which historically were intended to help the disadvantaged and low income families, or severely distressed segments of our economy.

I agree with provisions in our current tax code to help the poor, but I do not agree with the practice of buying votes with earmarks regardless of which side of the congressional isle they go. They should be eliminated. And the only way to eliminate the insatiable appetite for special favors in the tax code and proposed legislation is to replace the tax code with a consumption tax, the Fair Tax. But that’s a different story for a different day.

When the president and the leaders of Congress start using our tax dollars to buy votes to pass legislation for the sole purpose of enhancing their political power and control over the people, they have crossed a dangerous threshold that our Founding Fathers never imagined.

Speaker Pelosi spent just enough of our money to get a two-vote majority in the House version of the Health Care Deform bill, while Majority Leader Reid bought the votes of several senators with special deals that infuriated the public and even their fellow senators. Sen. Reid calls that compromise. As stated previously, I call it corruption.

And now for the president to extend special favors to union workers of this country over the sweat equity of non-union workers is outrageous and blatantly wrong. Proposing a tax on successful financial institutions because he does not agree with the earned bonus payouts at these institutions, while not taxing the failing government-controlled institutions is excessive government intervention.

This irresponsible use of power and our money puts freedom, liberty and fairness up for auction to the highest bidder, and a government-controlled totalitarian state in our future if we let it happen.

Excessive government and discretionary observance of the Constitution has become standard operating procedure for this president, his administration and the current Democrat-controlled Congress. Sadly, they make these infractions on the people’s rights and do not expect to be challenged.

The people are challenging them with their voices, even though they are not listening. And people will challenge them with their votes in 2010, because this time enough of the people will remember in November.

And if the president and Congress succeed in shoving their unfair and ultra liberal agenda down our throats, they will most certainly be challenged in our court system.

If the Democrats in Congress continue to hear from millions of us even as they try to craft a final version of their health care bill, we can impact that narrow two-point margin they had in the House version, and possibly cause some of the pirates in the Senate to rethink selling their votes.

One caller to my radio show tried to defend these actions by the president, Harry and Nancy according to the old adage “He who has the gold makes the rules”.

The problem is that it is our gold. It does not belong to Obama, Harry or Nancy.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Ken Blackwell

In 1804, Thomas Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams on the free exercise of individual conscience in America, and its indispensability to our freedoms. We may disagree, wrote the Founder, but that disagreement is to be welcomed, not crushed: “I tolerate with utmost latitude the right of others to differ with me in opinion without imputing to them criminality. I know too well all the weaknesses and uncertainty of human reason to wonder at its different results.”

Martha Coakley thinks she knows better than Thomas Jefferson.

The Democratic contender for the late Ted Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat made her uphill climb to election a bit steeper this past Thursday when she told radio host Ken Pittman of WBSM that persons with certain ethical principles should not work in the medical professions. Pittman specifically asked Coakley about the rights of conscience of health-care providers, and segued into a query on Roman Catholics in Massachusetts’s hospitals.

A response grounded in the American tradition of pluralism, freedom of conscience, and an ethical consideration for the autonomy of the individual would have gone something like this: “Ken, it’s not the state’s proper role to interpose itself between the conscience of the provider and that provider’s duties. In America, government derives its moral convictions and authority from the people — not the other way around.”

Martha Coakley is not grounded in the American tradition of pluralism, freedom of conscience, or an ethical consideration for the autonomy of the individual. Her response to Pittman was to denounce the idea of any allowance for individual conscience in federal health-care legislation. Then she uttered the line that alone ought to sink her campaign: “The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.”

It’s not often that a candidate for federal office goes on the record with her belief that whole classes of Americans should be excluded from whole sectors of our economy. Martha Coakley did exactly that, and the only term to describe it is one we should use sparingly in our public discourse. It should be reserved for direct attacks on our heritage as a free country of free people. It should be reserved for assaults on the foundations of our liberties as laid down in the American Revolution.

It’s anti-American.

Martha Coakley’s declaration that Roman Catholics “probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room” doesn’t just betray an ignorance of history and society, though it does both in full. Catholic provision of health-care is a proud tradition of centuries that, if you’re theologically minded, goes back to the healings of the Apostles — and if you’re historically minded, goes back to the lay and clerical orders that provided care to travelers, pilgrims and the poor beginning in the Dark Ages. In the United States today, Catholic health-care facilities exist in all fifty states. Despite Coakley’s wish that they not do so, those facilities provided care in nearly 17 million emergency-room visits last year.

Beyond Coakley’s ignorance, the effect of her pronouncement is nothing short of pernicious. If public officials decide it’s appropriate to recommend exclusion of faith groups from employment, where does that end? It doesn’t take much imagination to grasp that the threat only begins with Catholics. Adherents of Christian Science might find would-be U.S. Senators questioning their fitness for any health-related profession. Believers in literal Biblical Creation could see liberal officeholders demanding their ejection from the teaching profession. Muslim faithful might be urged out of security and military professions.

The logical consequences of Martha Coakley’s statement are both grotesque and stupid.

Martha Coakley does not exist in a vacuum. Her belief that conscience and its protections must be forced out of the health-care sector are tightly bound up with the ideology underlying the President’s push for health-care reform. That reform threatens ever-greater government involvement in health-care, and probably portends its takeover if passed.

With that comes the precedence of government priorities — and there’s little room for individual conscience. That’s why President Obama last month moved to revoke the conscience protections afforded health-care workers and providers under Federal rules. As Kevin Hasson and Luke Goodrich of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty wrote, “Regardless of one’s view on abortion, contraceptives, war or capital punishment, respecting conscience only when one agrees with you is no respect for conscience at all. Those who champion ‘choice’ and ‘tolerance’ should respect the conscience-based choices of those with whom they disagree.”

President Obama is taking the first step toward forcing health-care professionals to follow the government’s ethical agenda rather than their own. If Martha Coakley wins on Tuesday, it won’t be the last.
######

Ken Blackwell is a Fellow at the Family Research Council and a visiting professor at Liberty University School of Law. He is a former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Commission’

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Armstrong Williams

In the midst of a civil upheaval that threatened to unravel our society, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke of love and the need to overcome oppression without resorting to violence. He spoke of “a dream that one day this nation will rise up and hold . . .self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

So how stands this country now, 41 years after Dr. King gave his life for his dream? The election of the first American Black President, Barack Obama, is an unmistakable sign that the country has taken an astonishing step away from its history of slavery and institutionalized racism. Equally instructive, however, is the work that remains to be done.

In the afterglow of Barack Obama’s election, an overwhelming majority of the country believed that race relations would dramatically improve.

According to a Gallup poll, the day after Barack Obama won the presidency, 67 percent of Americans felt that racism would eventually be eradicated—that’s ten percentage points higher than at any other point in the four decades that Gallup has been polling.  Americans were more optimistic about solving race following Obama’s election that after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Indeed, most Americans surveyed said that Obama’s election represented the most important milestone for blacks in the last hundred years. Pundits wasted no time proclaiming that America had finally achieved a post-racial society.

The mood of the country was downright euphoric.

A little more than one year later, Americans opinion on race relations has changed. According to a new Gallup poll, the number of people who say racial problems will be worked out has dropped back to its pre-Obama level. Notably, the number of people who say race will always be a problem has risen from 30 percent to 40 percent; and one in five persons surveyed actually felt hat the race relations had gotten worse.

Perhaps most striking is that number of Americans reporting optimism regarding race relations—56%–was approximately the same as in 1963.

Bottom line: Most Americans feel the same about race relations in this country now, as they did before Obama was elected.

So what happened to all of that hope and optimism that greeted Obama’s election—and what does it say about the country’s evolving dialogue on race? It seems that a majority of American Blacks do not feel that the election of Obama has brought substantive change to their daily lives.

While there is general consensus that seeing a Black man in the White House is inspiring, there is little to point to in terms of genuine gains in racial equality. In other words, while the election of Obama provided an emotional boost, it does not seem to have dramatically impacted the underlying dynamics between white and black Americans.

In less than one year, the possibility of electing a black president has given way to a sinking reality: Very little has actually changed for the average black person. America’s legacy of racial injustices remains evident in the racial education and economic gap. Segregation remains a problem throughout America. Today, public schools are more segregated than during the Jim Crow era.  Nearly one out of every four black families lives below the poverty line compared to just six percent of white families. American Blacks were particularly hard hit by the economic downturn. More than twice as likely as whites to receive subprime loans, Black families are now losing their homes at an alarming rate. Substandard education begets poverty begets violence.

The Justice Department estimates that 32 percent of black men will go to prison at some point in their lives compared with just six percent of white males.

If you ask most  American Blacks how they feel about Obama, they are understandably proud. There is no doubt that Obama’s election has instilled a sense of “pride” that gives American Blacks hope and inspiration. But if you ask  American Blacks if Obama’s election will reduce the foreclosure rate, or the racial economic gap, or keep cops  from beating on them, they say of course not.  Daily life is not changing just because there is a black face in the White House. And in some ways, it may be getting worse.

I worry that Obama’s victory could undermine the push for equality by creating a sense of passivity amongst both black and white voters.

Though there is no way to prove this, I suspect that much of Obama’s cross-over appeal resides in the fact that he seems safe to white voters.  Like Bill Cosby or former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Obama is the perfect  American Black faceplate to overcome latent biases —a homogenized black upper class person who seems to carry around none of the anger for centuries of racial injustices. This is the subliminal appeal to Obama’s presidential candidacy: he seems to represent the exception to every black stereotype.  By voting for Obama, the White voting populace was presented with a unique opportunity to vote for someone who evoked none of the black anger, while at the same time offering them atonement for centuries of racial inequality. With the pull of a lever, American Whites collectively congratulated itself for moving beyond its ugly past.  At the same time, American Blacks seem to be regarding the mere fact of a black face in the White House as some sign of fundamental change. Both views are naïve.  A lot of work needs to be done to root out the systemic racism that remains in our society.  No one success story—no matter how inspiring—should distracts us from the systemic racism that still exists.

So, what lessons can we draw from this historical moment? It could very well be that Obama’s election signals a decline in individual racism, but not systemic racism. Systemic racism refers to the inequities that are entrenched in our social institutions.  For example, the best public school systems are located in the most expensive communities.

Poor people—mostly of color—are priced out of these communities.

Consequently, public schools are now more segregated than during the Jim Crow era.  These types of inequities may not be the result of individual bigotry, but they are certainly hangover from a shared history of racial and economic segregation.

What the success of Obama tells us is that our primary concern can no longer be with individual bigotry.  We must shift our focus to the systemic issues that have resulted from a shared history of slavery.

The crucial first step is realizing that the lessons of liberalism no longer apply. The dialogue in the black community should not be about getting a seat at the table; it should be about owning the table. We need to educate ourselves on how to build wealth in our communities because the mere fact that the President is black, doesn’t mean that our lives will change. The key to overcoming systemic racism is to rely on ourselves, instead of the government.  Without this crucial first step, the dialogue on race relations in this country will remain mired in accusation and defensiveness—and the lingering systemic issues will remain unchanged.

www.armstrongwilliams.com

Williams is heard nightly on Sirius/XM Power 169  9 pm - 10 pm EST.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
1 Comment »

By Harry R. Jackson, Jr.

The following is an excerpt of a letter that was presented to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Mike Pence, Mitch McConnell, Barbara Lee and the Congressional Black Caucus this week by national pastors and leaders who want to be counted among those who see marriage as an important issue in America today.

… We, the under-signed, are a bi-partisan group of 100 ministers from around the nation. Most of us currently serve the African-American community, but we have begun a national campaign to mobilize the entire Christian community - black, white, and Hispanic.

We are asking you to veto the Religious Freedom and Civil Rights Equality Amendment of 2009. In addition, we solicit your help in protecting the citizen’s right to vote under to the District of Columbia’s Charter. The charter guarantees the people a co-equal opportunity with the city council to create or veto laws.

Currently, federal law defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman. Further, the DOMA bill was passed in the US Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. The DC Charter authorizes a citywide vote on this or any other issue, if petitioned to do so by the people. By furiously doing everything in its power to prevent a citywide vote on the definition of marriage, the City Council ignores what the charter plainly says. This arrogant act is tantamount to illegally ‘amending’ or ‘deleting’ the D.C. Charter’s guarantee to the citizens of their right to vote.

… If the recent DC same sex-marriage law is allowed to stand, people around the nation will ask, “Why did Congress allow the city to violate the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)?” …If the Congress or Senate do not weigh in to protect marriage, there will be political consequences to pay. In a recent city council hearing in DC about this law, Councilman Jack Evans warned DC citizens that “there will consequences” for bringing our concerns to the Hill. He spoke as though he was a dictator or potentate of some sort. His words are indelibly etched on our minds and the DC public hearing records.

On January 11, Eleanor Holmes Norton’s organization released the following statement, “The Congresswoman has already done the initial work to close the gates on overturning the Religious Freedom and Civil Rights Equality Amendment.” Unfortunately, her zeal for the District does not include the right of the people to be heard. Further, David Catania has gone to the Hill on several occasions to fight the right of the people to be heard, despite the national consequences of his actions.

The councilman’s actions are questionable because of a statement he made on Friday October 30, 2009 while handling an unrelated matter in the DC City Council. He said, “…the federal law and the DC Home Rule Charter takes precedence over District Law and Policies when there is a conflict or challenge in that law or policy.” Furthermore, all the members of both the House and the Senate should be reminded that there is a clause in the District’s Human Rights Law which states “Nothing in this chapter (law) shall be construed to supersede any federal rule, regulation or act.”

…You have the responsibility and oversight of the District of Columbia. Further, the District is our federal capital. Unlike Las Vegas, what happens in DC rarely stays in DC. Finally, our elected officials have vehemently opposed the people’s rights. Therefore, we ask that you consider the counsel of the seasoned ministers and community leaders who write to you as moral and cultural watchmen…

Our views are based on timeless values and clear principles that anchor both our faith and our politics. Let us restate the fact that the demographic we purport to represent is not simply an appendage of the “religious right.” If our estimates are correct, people who think like us number between 60 and 75 million voters. This voting block is the foundation of a new kind of coalition that voted for Proposition 8 in California. They also voted for President Obama. A danger for both parties would be to write us off as being doctrinaire, impractical, or out of touch with their respective political bases.

Why are we so animated about this topic? … In every nation where same-sex unions have received comparable status to heterosexual marriage, rapid and additional destabilization of the entire institution of marriage has been an unintended consequence.

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

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

In conclusion, we want to live out one of the principles of Eleanor Holmes Norton’s “political bible.” She is famous for saying, “The only way to make sure people you agree with can speak is to support the rights of people you don’t agree with.” Even though Norton, Catania, and Evans are all gay marriage advocates, the people still deserve their right to vote. Therefore we cry — Let the people vote!

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »