FJM Blog

By Armstrong Williams

If any chief executive officer in the United States of America presented his board with a budget that was one-third unfunded, he would be fired and tossed out of the boardroom immediately.

President Obama recently revealed a $3.8 trillion budget for FY2011 that has a $1.3 trillion deficit. This budget short fall represents $4,000 for every man, woman and child in America. It is equivalent to a business CEO presenting his board of directors with a financial plan to have a 34 percent loss. This is on top of a $1.6 trillion deficit in FY2010 which is equivalent to a 40 percent business loss.

No bank in the world would finance a business with the losses (i.e. deficits that the U.S. government has had over the past few years.) The bankers would send the business executives back to the drawing board to restructure the company. This would include cutting personnel, reducing compensation and benefits, restraining travel and cutting commitments for services and capital expenses.

If the business executives could not eliminate the loss, the company would go into bankruptcy for the court to restructure or liquidate.

Unfortunately for our children and grandchildren, the U.S. government has another way to finance its losses. It transfers the payment of these losses to future generations of taxpayers by increasing the national debt. This deficit will increase the national debt to $15.7 trillion or 101 percent of the gross domestic product, or GDP. This is equivalent to $47,000 of debt for every American!

Mortgaging the future of American taxpayers should not be an acceptable option to the American people.

Our president has made anemic gestures to reduce spending in his budget in certain non-discretionary areas. However, these symbolic gestures take place after this fiscal year. If Mr. Obama truly and sincerely wishes to reduce the deficit, he must take similar actions that everyday U.S. corporations implement when confronted with huge losses.

Unfortunately, companies reduce their losses by cutting their workforce, reducing levels of employee compensation and eliminating all unnecessary spending to meet the shortfall. The U.S government, on the other hand, continues to increase its workforce in this great recession and is promoting and increasing the salaries of all government employees. It also has increased spending on new programs.

Only to exacerbate the issue, there have been no major discussions to reengineer government employee retirement plans. Major companies in the auto industry have seen how difficult it can be to pay frightfully enormous pension plans over the years; and, how quickly this can monstrously grow into an uncontrollable financial burden.

However, luckily for our national government, it doesn’t have to face stock owners and board of directors who would like to see the government grow, be prosperous and competitive. Rather, these retirement benefits for government employees fly well under the public radar. Plus, their pensions will always be safe as unassuming tax payers are continually cajoled by power hungry politicians to uphold this lush retirement system. This is insane when our government continues to have this catastrophic deficit. This insanity is clearly a reflection on the extraordinary power public-sector unions have on the Democratic Party. What this does, without question, is transfer wealth from the productive private sector to the unproductive public sector.

Wouldn’t it be great if the public sector was to be held accountable to the public? Wouldn’t it be nice if it had to answer to its investors –the tax payers? Various arms of the government would have to become more efficient in their hiring, training, the products and or services in which they produce. They would be forced to have balanced budgets; and, the only bureaucracy would hold the dollar as king. Well, maybe only in a perfect world.

The deficit is driven not only by outrageous increases in labor costs, but by inextricably increasing entitlement costs. Unless this government faces the grim reality, these entitlement costs will soon drive our nation to severe bankruptcy. A bankruptcy from which our children and grandchildren will never recover.

The problem is that most Americans can’t fathom the grim realities of what it’s like for a country to go bankrupt, or for a currency to completely crash. I am sure those who have close relatives who lived through the Great Depression may have a little bit more perspective. They have seen their frugal ways. How they pay attention to everything they spend. How they keep a watchful eye on the way the markets are turning. The ruling generation appears to be far detached from a mindset that can thrive even in the harshest of conditions.

All one really has to do is look at Buenos Aires[NOTE], Argentina [\NOTE]–once one of the richest cities to live, on par with New York City and Paris. However, after going through a couple of decades of irresponsible state leaders, war and probably most controversial, a forced alien economic system, the country, although it claims to have recovered, really hasn’t.

Now, Buenos Aires has become one of the cheapest travel destinations in the world. And things won’t change for quite some time. The people of Argentina have little to no upward mobility when it comes to class. They are either poor, middle-class or rich.

It is one of the few countries where you will find highly educated people with jobs that Americans associate with the rich are stuck in the middle-class. Worse yet, the Argentinian government adopted protectionist policies to protect its native uncompetitive industries.

This shouldn’t be the future of America. We as a people need to protect the value of our currency. We need to protect our markets and keep them competitive over the long hull. We have a right to stand up when something doesn’t sound economically feasible. There is an eminent threat that can, and will destroy our country.

Americans must remember that other countries want to have the position of being a global hegemonic force. They want to have all of the world’s talent and resources filtered directly into their country.

Americans should look back on the Keynesian economic - a mixture of socialism and capitalism - policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Don’t be afraid to remember that many of his socially radical policies were later shamefully revoked and some rightfully deemed unconstitutional. Instead of bowing down to an ideological economic approach, such as the Keynesian approach - which favors government spending to recover what is lost on the consumer and business side of the GDP equation - maybe the government should focus on doing what is fiscally responsible.

The great people of America want to see economic decisions that reflect empirical evidence –it should be convincing. If not, I am afraid that the honest hardworking people of America will spell economic doom and government bankruptcy for the once-greatest economic engine known to humankind around the globe as: “O-B-A-M-A.”

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Lisa Fritsch

For me and a special group of youth in North Tyler, Texas, Black History Month began in September.  That’s when the coordinator in charge of the “Black History Bowl” at my school began confirming who would participate in this annual competition among neighboring churches the following February.

I would conspicuously hover around Sister Dorothy Wheat to get noticed.  After doing this for some time, she finally relented, telling me: “You can be on the Black History Bowl team.  I’ll tell you now, ‘fore you worry me to death the next two weeks.”

For the next three months after that, six other teens and I met weekly at St. Mary’s Baptist Church - fueled by sugar cookies and crimson punch - to take in the rich and complex history of our ancestors.  By the time the competition rolled around, it was not just the knowledge that Dr. Charles Drew was the first to figure out how to store blood for later use or that Harriet Tubman led the Underground Railroad that got one the coveted round one position but the speed.  The round one contestant, like the first runner in a relay, could set the team up for victory.

In the end, however, the Black History Bowl was less about competition than celebration. After all, our only prize was bragging rights.  The competition was really for everyone to recognize our race’s reward of succeeding out of struggle and its triumph over adversity. We learned everything about our brave and gifted ancestors in the context of joy and victory.

As we celebrate Black History Month today, we seem to lack that same luster of victory. Remembrances these days focus on suffering and struggle.  When we look back today, we too often focus on a past full of anguish and tears and a yesterday of victimization and degradation.

As in my youth, the best way to honor those who suffered before us is to celebrate their joys and their victories as well as count our own. The best way to indulge in learning from our past during Black History Month is to lift up their songs of hope and courage in our lives today.  The best way to repay the great debt we owe them is to reap the benefits of the American dream and opportunity for which they forged a path.

Let us not spend another Black History Month steeped in guilt and oppression - counting all the wrong ways of the past or present.  Rather, let us dance in ebullience for the land under our feet and the gait of freedom in which we now walk.  Let us join together as one to blend black history into American history. Let us count the ways in which so many dreams have come to pass and - for those who have yet to achieve them - let us march on toward victory in the strapping spirit of our ancestors.

This is the least we owe to our history.

The genius of those old black folk in my small town - to arrange these simple but profound events - is itself legendary.  That they turned historical learning into a simple, competitive exercise that made us proud to know and eager to recite the legacy of our people instilled a desire in people like me to “be somebody.”

At low points in my own life, the impact of their self-discipline and perseverance that has become a part of my being has helped me carry on.  This is in itself a mark of history.

Knowingly or not, a legacy was created that deserves a meaningful place in black history along with those we so eagerly longed to remember.

#  #  #

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 Herman Cain

The president, his administration and most members of Congress still don’t get it! So let’s try to explain job creation another way. You stimulate the creation of jobs by reducing an employer’s cost to keep people employed (less taxes), and then by reducing the cost of a business to grow their business (less regulations). If these two things happen then jobs will be created.

Job creation is not a complicated phenomenon, but the president and the Democrats have been convinced that less taxes is bad, and more regulations are good. It’s just the opposite and there is plenty of historical evidence to prove it.

The Economic Report of the President was released last week by his Council of Economic Advisers. According to the Wall Street Journal (February 11, 2010), “the report offers few new policy prescriptions or economic forecasts.” In fact, the administration still believes it can rebuild the economy through health care legislation, clean-energy initiatives, infrastructure projects, and small-business tax breaks.

Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA) gave the most laser-like description of the report. “The Obama Administration’s report is full of blame for the policies of years past, praise for its own failed policies of the past year, and promises about their ideological agenda to grow government.”

Translation, the report is 400-plus pages of repackaged propaganda.

Of course the president restated his commitment to job creation, but most of the chatter from his administration and Congress about a new jobs bill is just another bunch of gimmicks that will do nothing to stimulate new job creation.

Just as “cash for clunkers” was a gimmick that did not work, the current offering of a $5000 tax credit to employers who hire an unemployed worker, plus a limited-time suspension of part of their payroll taxes are just propaganda gimmicks.

Here, again, are some of the real job creation policy suggestions that the president and Congress are not listening to:

Make the current tax rates permanent. The uncertainty of what will happen to tax rates at the end of this year has put businesses in a state of stop. Raising taxes will only make things worse.

Suspend the payroll tax for all workers for a year. This will be an instantaneous stimulus for all employers and all workers. The cost would be approximately the cost of the first stimulus, which did not work, but this one would generate increased tax revenues. And yes, it means the Social Security and Medicare train wrecks will come a year earlier, so start restructuring them now.

Stop the expansion of government and the expansion of federal spending! This would help to create some confidence with the public that the policy makers are finally hearing the people. Confidence is an economic additive to growth.

It is really not any more complicated than that. Stated another way, if government gets out of the way and remove tax uncertainty and regulatory uncertainty, a real economic recovery could get underway.

The president, his advisors and the Democrats in Congress can’t seem to get past their Washington beltway bubble, their insatiable quest for power, or their desperate desire to get re-elected. Even worse, they can’t let go of their political agenda to make government bigger and bigger, and tax us to death.

The citizen activist movement that is growing across this country is no gimmick. It is getting bigger and bigger, and promises to produce even more election surprises in November of 2010 similar to what happened recently in New Jersey and Massachusetts.

Maybe then they will get it.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Star Parker

Historic change sometimes comes from unlikely sources.

A famous example was long time anti-Communist Richard Nixon breaking the diplomatic ice with Red China.

One that came close was in 1998 when President Clinton carefully studied reforming Social Security with personal retirement accounts along the lines that President George W. Bush proposed a few years later.

Clinton’s research team, which included Douglas Elmendorf, current director of the Congressional Budget Office, spent a year and a half studying options for revamping Social Security, and intense scrutiny was given to the personal accounts option.

In December of 1998, the Clinton White House hosted a Social Security Summit, and one of the invited speakers was Jose Pinera, the Chilean who in 1980 transformed, with great success, his nation’s Social Security system to one of ownership with personal retirement accounts.

As reported by Elmendorf and two colleagues in a paper in 2001, sweeping Social Security reform proposals were politically derailed by Clinton’s impeachment.

Nevertheless, Clinton told the nation in his State of the Union address in January 1999 that Social Security was broken and needed reform: “Today, Social Security is strong. But by 2013, payroll taxes will no longer be sufficient to cover monthly payments.”

Clinton was optimistic. It is now 2010 and payroll taxes will not cover payments.

Fortune Magazine’s Allan Sloan reported last week in the Washington Post that, although no government official has formally announced as such, a Congressional Budget Office report shows that “Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.”

A few visionary and courageous young members of Congress, such as Paul Ryan, R, Wisc., are trying to get bold reform of Social Security back on the table.

Ryan calls his broad-based reform bill, which has nine co-sponsors, a “Road Map for America’s Future.” It includes a provision to allow those under 55 the option of taking ownership of a third of their current Social Security taxes and investing them in a personal retirement account.

Surely initiatives to revive the personal retirement account idea will run into the same opposition and criticism that President Bush encountered. A major one, that it would expose the average American to excessive risk, will be trumpeted even more now in the wake of the recent major stock market downturn.

But this criticism is incorrect now as it was then.

The positive compounded annual returns of investing over a 45-year working life will overwhelm the inevitable years of downturn.

The awakening that needs to occur is to appreciate that the breakdown of Social Security, as well as Medicare, reflects the inevitable failure of social engineering. It seemed like such a bright idea 75 years ago, when there were more than 40 individuals working for every retiree, to provide a government retirement stipend financed with a payroll tax. But it doesn’t work quite as well when there are three, on the way to two, working and paying for each retiree — today’s reality.

Tax increases and benefit cuts, with the goal to make the existing Social Security system solvent, would only make a bad deal even worse for every working American.

We need, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, a “new birth of freedom.” Restore an American retirement system based ownership rather than socialism.

This is a bi-partisan reform opportunity where Barack Obama can truly make history.

Wealth doesn’t come from income. It comes from ownership. Investing in personal retirement accounts, rather than paying Social Security taxes, would be a boon for America’s black community. Median financial wealth of black households, excluding home ownership, is about a hundredth that of white households.

Maybe there will be an epiphany in the White House and historic change will again come from an unlikely source.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

For Release: February 11, 2010
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 and (703) 568-4727 or e-mail project21@nationalcenter.org or Judy Kent at (703) 759-7476 or jkent@nationalcenter.org

Washington, DC - Desperation and panic over the imminent failure of cap-and-trade legislation is driving a new White House lobbying push by special interest groups, according to policy experts at the National Center for Public Research.

Corporate and environmental special interest groups are meeting with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Climate Change Czar Carol Browner this week, spurred by comments by President Obama that the politically-unpopular cap-and-trade requirements might be split from the “green jobs” section of the cap-and-trade bill. Such a change would likely doom the chances of a national law mandating reductions in carbon emissions.

President Obama made the remarks at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire last week.

Obama’s comments follow a series of highly publicized controversies surrounding the quality of science behind claims that industrial activity is causing global warming. Climategate and politicized material in the United Nations’ most recent IPCC report appear to be eroding both political and public support for global warming legislation.

“Elected officials are recognizing that supporting cap-and-trade is a political loser and they are shielding themselves from the shrapnel of the exploding global warming bubble.  A recent poll by The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found global warming last on a list of public policy priorities for the president and Congress,” said Deneen Borelli, a fellow with National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network.

“While there are serious questions about the science, there is no doubt that cap-and-trade will lead to higher energy prices, slower economic growth, and additional job losses,” added Deneen Borelli.

GE CEO Jeff Immelt and Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers, members of the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a coalition that supports cap-and-trade, attended the lobbying sessions.

“Importantly, only a handful of USCAP CEOs participated in the high-level lobbying pitch.  It appears the majority of the USCAP CEOs are abandoning the cap-and-trade gambit leaving a handful of CEOs.  Since Immelt and Rogers have bet the fortunes of their respective companies on the bill, it seems they are willing to go down with the cap-and-trade ship,” said Tom Borelli, PhD, Director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project.

“It’s clear the political winds are blowing against the few active members of USCAP. Immelt and Rogers are serving as poster children for CEOs who failed the political game and put their shareholders in jeopardy,” said Tom Borelli.

Congressional backlash against new global warming laws and/or regulation also includes proposed actions by the EPA.  Democratic Congressmen Ike Skelton and Collin Peterson have introduced a bill to strip the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas.  Congressional efforts to block the EPA from regulating carbon emissions only adds momentum to the anti-climate change wave moving across the political arena.

“The fact that Democrats are rising against EPA’s regulatory overreach shows the political tide has turned against global warming alarmism.  It’s a great sign for liberty,” said Deneen Borelli.

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-profit, free-market think-tank established in 1982 and funded primarily by the gifts of over 100,000 recent individual contributors.  Less than one percent of funding is received from corporations.

— 30 —

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By  Armstrong Williams

When you deconstruct and closely analyze the details in their rhetoric, one quickly realizes the major philosophical and principle divide between liberals and conservatives. Put simply, conservatives like us believe in equality of opportunity and unfettered freedom.  Liberals on the other hand, want a world where the outcomes are equal – almost guaranteed - even if it requires less societal income/ wealth and lesser freedoms.

To illustrate the point, let’s examine some of the recent congressional proposals that were advocated in Congress.  Healthcare: The Left was willing to sacrifice individual freedom to choose doctors, opting instead to impose a state-run monopoly on medical care at the expense of a market driven health system. They unabashedly didn’t care that they were redistributing income from the more productive to the less productive; from the young to the old; from the healthy to the less healthy. In contrast, conservatives looked towards market solutions to resolve many of the existing health care issues, one that operated within a framework of the invisible hand of rational behaviors and the proper incentives.  If cost is a factor in health care as liberals would argue, then why not ensure the solution has a price-based fixture?

Cap and Trade:  Under the Democratic plan, income derived from a cap and trade scheme would be redistributed from productive carbon reducing enterprises to non carbon emitting enterprises.  In effect, jobs would be lost, shifting from the USA to less responsible, emerging countries.  Wealth would shift from America to non- compliant nations.  And for what reason?  Because of spotty, inconclusive scientific evidence that reduced carbon emissions would prevent global warming.  Conservatives questioned that science.  Not because they were Neanderthals.  But when you ask the average American to pay $5 for a gallon of gas to save an iceberg in a remote part of the north he may never see when that same person is struggling to pay that month’s mortgage or he himself will be out in the cold, you better be damn sure of the consequences of “global warming.”  Frankly, the Left failed in that argument.

Union Card Check:  Democrats were willing to sacrifice the sanctity of a secret ballot to insure that Unions could fleece more American workers. With members (and clout) dissipating at record rates, it’s evident union bosses are feeling their grip on power lifting.  It was easy to see this political exercise for what it was – a desperate bid to win at all costs, even if it meant cooking the ballot box at union halls.  Here again, conservatives stood on an obvious side – the one for more freedom and more individualism.

McCain-Feingold.  Democrats howled when the Supreme Court recently overturned corporate prohibitions in the landmark McCain-Feingold law. Here again, they’re willing to sacrifice the constitutionally-protected free speech of corporations and their shareholders.  This has the long term effect of preventing this segment of society from spending their corporate dollars on political issues that are or are not in their best interest. The beauty of our First Amendment is captured best in its simplicity – when you abridge someone’s right to speak out for causes he/she believe in, no amount of demagoguing will cover that injustice.

In the real world, most Americans are neither completely liberal nor conservative in their overall views. Views and opinions change, based on one’s own station in life and through differing circumstances.  That’s why we have laws, based on fundamental principles of what’s just.  Because if left to the devices and whims of populists, so-called principles would change in an instant, and freedoms would suffer.  That’s why conservatives look back to the Founders – they approached the building of this nation with the freshest of views – chief among them was the unfailing pursuit toward more, not less, freedom.

Conservatives will never be able to cogently persuade a true liberal who is more than willing to sacrifice his freedom and income so that there is absolute perceived equality.  Likewise, liberals will never persuade conservatives to sacrifice individual freedom and hard earned wealth to be redistributed by bureaucrats and politicians in Washington, DC. For this reason alone, the Left and Right will never meet.  It’s probably good that they don’t, for conflict is at the heart of democracy.  I’m just glad I and my conservative colleagues are on the side of liberty!

www.armstrongwilliams.com

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

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

by Ken Blackwell and Ken Klukowski

The Senate is about to act on the nomination of militant leftist Dawn Johnsen to be the chief of the U.S. government’s elite legal team. But that post is a stepping-stone for top judicial offices, including the Supreme Court itself. That’s likely Barack Obama’s plans for Johnsen, and it’s why she must be stopped now.

Ultra-liberal activist Dawn Johnsen, currently a professor at Indiana University School of Law, is President Obama’s nominee to be assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). As the OLC chief, Johnsen would shape the legal positions of the Obama administration on every issue. OLC is the elite legal team for the federal government, giving legal advice on every important issue to the attorney general, other department heads in the government, and to the president himself. That’s why the head of OLC is called “the attorney general’s lawyer.”

The problem is that Johnsen is a radical. As the former legal director for the extremist abortion-rights group NARAL, Johnsen argued in a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court that denying a pregnant woman the right to demand unrestricted abortion is to subject her to slavery, which was outlawed by the Thirteenth Amendment after the Civil War.

She also argues that wiretapping a known terrorist is illegal without first obtaining a warrant, that military detention of terrorists captured on foreign battlefields is illegal, and that being commander-in-chief gives the president no constitutional authority to use wartime measures that would not be allowed against U.S. citizens during peacetime.

And finally, she believes in “economic justice,” which is the euphemistic term of the Radical Left, referring to the concept that government should confiscate and redistribute personal wealth to create a more “just” society. In one word, it’s socialism.

Even worse, Johnsen passionately argues that liberals should, “focus on the courts as the vehicles for desired change.” In other words, her legal advice would not only be advice; she intends to craft legal strategies to cram ultra-left outcomes down America’s throat through judicial activist court decisions.

The normal rule is that the Senate should give tremendous deference to any president when it comes to whom that president wants to assist him in the executive branch. Such appointees serve only at the pleasure of the president, they are there solely to carry out the president’s directions in steering the government, and they go out the door the instant the president does, if not before.

But even tremendous deference is not unlimited deference. The Senate defers, but they do not give a blank check. Otherwise there would be no Senate confirmation process; the Constitution would instead just empower the president to appoint anyone he wants to all executive-branch departments and offices.

And for low-ranking officers, called “inferior officers,” the Constitution does allow for the president to directly appoint without the Senate. But for senior executive officials, called “principal officers,” the Appointments Clause of Article Two of the Constitution requires Senate confirmation as a check on the president’s power.

This is one of those extraordinary circumstances where the Senate should reject a nominee. Comparing being pro-life to supporting slavery is a grossly offensive statement, especially to African-Americans, and her other extremist views are so radical that she is a textbook example of someone who must be denied confirmation.

Read more….

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

There’s a justified outrage brewing among a growing number of black Americans, thanks to a shocking documentary circulating titled “Maafa 21.”

The film links the founders of Planned Parenthood to a sinister black genocide plan, and conservative blacks are determined to get the word out. “Maafa 21″ is the center topic of this month’s Freedom’s Journal Magazine, an online publication produced by Matteson resident Dr. Eric Wallace.

FJM is launching its third year, and it is the first time a black genocide conspiracy has been discussed, Wallace said.

“Being that February is Black History Month, we thought it the right time to discuss the devastation that abortion is bringing on black Americans,” he said.

Indeed. According to statistics gathered since 1973, 14 million black Americans have been victimized by abortion, while fewer than 4 million have died from AIDS, crime, accidents, cancer and heart disease, combined.

“Maafa” - an African word for “tragedy” - goes through several historical resources and highlights controversial quotes linking Charles Darwin’s foundational evolution theory work, “The Origin of Species,” with contemporary author Francis Galton’s writings on eugenics. The film’s theory is that while some of the nation’s wealthiest families benefited from early America’s African slave trade, when slaves were freed after the Civil War, some of those same families developed a plan to rid the nation of African “undesirables.”

As far-fetched as this conspiracy theory may seem to the rest of us, in-depth research in “Maafa 21″ shows how black Americans may be the victims of an even more tragic history than any of us ever could have imagined. And the travesty continues, now being funded with our taxpayer dollars.

“Black Americans were brought to this continent in chains,” writes Mychal Massie, chairman of black leadership network Project 21 in this month’s FJM. “After emancipation, we were subject to unfair laws that restricted the freedoms we were promised. Discrimination has robbed us of opportunity.”

But for Massie, the anger culminates with the ongoing pro-abortion propaganda promoted on unknowing black brothers and sisters.

“Now with the playing field as level as it has ever been, blacks are still being pushed into a corner by abortion.”

First known as the American Birth Control League, the accused group’s moniker evolved in the late 1930s to the more positive-sounding Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is now the nation’s largest abortion provider. Statistics show that 49 out of 1,000 black women undergo abortion, compared with 13 out of 1,000 white women.

As a result, encouraging abortion is shrinking America’s black population, Wallace says. More blacks must become familiar with the roots and effects of abortion politics.

“Over the years, I had read about Margaret Sanger and her visits with the Ku Klux Klan, but this documentary is eyeopening,” Wallace said. ” ‘Maafa 21′ doesn’t focus on a conspiracy theory to stir racism, it’s an effort to make people aware of the devastation abortion is bringing upon black America.”

Abortion isn’t just a social or religious issue, Wallace said. It’s an economic issue, as well.

Click here to read more...

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Rev. Wayne Perryman

When various individuals say our country is a racist nation, it implies or suggests that the nation as a whole universally endorsed, engaged or allowed such (racist) practices to exist without challenge. Even if one concludes after looking at all the evidence that our nation is indeed racist, it is only fair that one should acknowledge and/or recognize the efforts of those who tried to prevent or eradicate these practices. Recognizing the efforts of those groups, organizations and individuals who fought for the rights of others is the only way to have an objective perspective as to what actually took place in our history.

From the time the first slave ship arrived in Jamestown in 1619, there was white opposition to slavery. In other words, there has never been universal support for the institution of slavery in this country by its white citizens. What is not commonly communicated when discussing the issue of slavery, are the consistent efforts of those whites who spent a lifetime trying to eliminate this inhumane institution - from colonial times through Reconstruction.

Like slavery, at some point and time in the future, historians may look back at this generation and conclude that America was an abortion nation. Although a segment of our population do engage and support these practices, those reaching such conclusions would have to ignore the fact that a vast majority of Americans never engaged in these types of practices and they would also have to ignore the efforts of those who tried to prevent abortions, through legislation, education and adoption programs. Additionally the person reaching such conclusion would also ignore the fact that abortions, like slavery, was not an issue that the citizens voted on, it was a practice sanctioned by the court and later endorse by some legislators with much opposition.

While many accuse America of being a racist nation because of slavery, they overlook the fact that Haiti had slaves, Brazil had slaves, Cuba had slaves as did Great Britain and the Muslims countries, but they never cite these nations as being racist.

History tells us before William Wilberforce ended slavery in Great Britain (1833) whites in America had already ended slavery in the following states:

Rhode Island ended slavery 1774

Vermont ended slavery 1777

Pennsylvania ended slavery 1780

Massachusetts ended slavery 1781

New Hampshire ended slavery 1783

Connecticut ended slavery 1784

New York ended slavery 1799

New Jersey ended slavery 1804

Other states that later rejected slavery include:

Maine

Michigan

Wisconsin

Ohio

Indiana

Kansas

Oregon

California

Illinois

The issue of eliminating and/or condemning slavery was proposed in Jefferson’s first draft of the Declaration of Independence (1776), and the issue was also the subject of a very heated debate at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 as they attempted to finalize our Constitution. Unfortunately, those who had the most political and economical power (rich southern plantation owners) prevailed.

History tells us that slavery was a very divisive issue; in no way did it unify our country. Because it was so divisive, white families split, white churches split, denominations split and eventually our nation split, which resulted in a Civil War.

The chronicles of history reveal that:

In 1652 Quakers attempted to pass legislation in Philadelphia to make slavery illegal.

In 1688 in Germantown, PA, Quakers passed legislation to eliminate slavery.

In 1711 some colonist passed legislation to eliminate slavery but Great Britain overturned the legislation, stating that colonies did not have the authority to legislate these types of laws.

In 1757 Quakers took formal action against their own members who were involved with slavery.

In 1775 Philadelphia organized America’s first Abolitionist Society, which consisted of mostly white Christians and freed slaves.

In 1805 a senator from Vermont introduced a bill to ban the importation of slaves.

The law, although receiving strong opposition from Southern Democrats, was finally passed by both houses of Congress on March 2, 1807 and signed into law by Jefferson on March 3, 1807 (but would not go in effect until 1808).

There was white opposition to slavery among every political organization up until the formation of our two current political parties (Democrats and Republicans). It was at this time that the political lines on the issue of slavery were clearly drawn. The whites that supported slavery became the Democratic Party and were known as the Party of White Supremacy and the whites who opposed slavery became the Republican Party were known as nigger lovers.

Our nation’s strongest opposition to slavery was evident and demonstrated when it rejected Senator John Crittenden’s proposal to amend the Constitution (with six amendments) to protect the institution of slavery (more commonly known as the Crittenden Plan or the Crittenden Compromise). Senator Crittenden was a Democratic Senator from the state of Kentucky the birthplace of Abraham Lincoln.

During the same period two-thirds of Congress and three-fourth of the states (white citizens and Congressmen) adopted and passed three Constitutional Civil Rights Amendments (the Thirteenth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fifteenth Amendment). The two-thirds and the three-fourth represents a clear majority of whites in America and was one of the first times white American citizens were given an opportunity to have a say regarding what they thought about slavery. Not only did white America elect an anti-slavery president, they went one step further when the opportunity presented itself, and outlawed slavery with the Constitution.

History tells us that without the political backing of those who made up and formed the powerful Democratic Party, slavery would have ended one hundred years earlier and Jim Crow would have died in the womb of those who conceived it.

Based on the consistent opposition to slavery and Jim Crow by many white Americans, one can argue that Lincoln had it right in his speech: A House Divided. The division that he spoke about was those who supported slavery versus those who opposed it. Based on this division among white Americans along with the efforts of many whites from the early Quakers and Orthodox Puritans to Senator Charles Sumner, one can conclude that perhaps a more appropriate title for America would be a “divided nation,” not a “racist nation.”

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Herman Cain

Most of us know better than to believe everything we see on TV. We also don’t believe everything we hear on talk radio, and we certainly do not believe many of the claims made by many of the blogs on the Internet. But there are some things I have learned from some of the TV news programs that have inspired me to investigate further.

In an age of information on steroids, the TV is often a starting point for many people who want to delve into headlines and sound bites more deeply. So for the president to tell the Democratic senators gathered at a conference to just “turn off the TV” is further evidence that the White House does not want to be challenged, criticized or corrected.

Early on in the Obama administration, they tried to target talk radio, specifically Rush Limbaugh, who has the largest talk radio audience on the planet. Next, it tried to single out the Fox News Channel because they dared to question the potential effectiveness of the $787 billion stimulus bill, and they dared to challenge claims made by the administration about a manufactured measurement called “jobs saved” when the administration was trying to say that the stimulus bill was working.

The administration even barred Fox from White House press briefings and would not schedule members of the administration to appear on Fox for a period of time, until the competing news channels saw this as wrong, and recognized that it could happen to them. They then would not participate unless all major channels could participate.

And now, for the president to tell Democratic senators at a conference to turn off the TV and go listen to their constituency, when they did not want to listen to them last August during the Congressional August recess, is a tipping point of arrogance.

Are the members of Congress who were elected by the people supposed to only listen to the president and his administration for accurate information and analysis?

The answer is no!

What part of the First Amendment to the Constitution about freedom of speech and freedom of the press don’t they understand? Obviously, they choose not to understand any of it.

Had it not been for a TV news report, I would not have heard about the Internal Revenue Service being given expanded powers to become the “health care police”. I looked it up and verified that it was true in the House version of the health care deform legislation.

When the president was trying to sell his health care proposal by claiming that 46 to 50 million people were without health insurance, it was the TV news programs that started to peel back the numbers and report the truth about the makeup of those numbers. Not all of the news programs challenged those numbers, but the president finally started to claim a more conservative number of over 30 million, which is still a misleading number.

There are numerous examples, but most recently, as the House was voting to raise the statutory debt ceiling to $14.3 trillion following the actions already taken by the Senate, the Treasury Department released a statement that the pending new legal debt limit would be used up by the end of February 2010. The original expectation was that it would last until sometime during 2011. I first heard about this on a TV news program and verified that it is true.

The president said in his State of the Union address that maybe he has not explained things well enough regarding some of his proposals. No Mr. President, we do understand your proposals. You just can’t seem to get the message that the majority of Americans do not like them.

And your response is that our Members of Congress and the public should just turn off the TV and stay stupid. I don’t think so.

We will continue to challenge, criticize and correct if necessary. It is our constitutional right.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »