FJM Blog

By Herman Cain

Now that the shock of passing the Health Care Deform bill against the will of the American people has settled in a bit, the people’s sentiment has gone from mad to fighting mad. President Obama and the Democrats are probably not aware of that fact, because they simply don’t care!

As former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said in a statement released last Friday, President Obama and the Democrats are looking back and saying, “We don’t care how mad you are, we got what we wanted.”

They wanted Obama-Reid-Pelosi care and they got it using consistent talking points that did not always match with reality, gimmicky accounting, factual distortions and bribes to Congressional Democrats to secure their votes. They wanted the American people to know that their political agenda will not be stopped by Republicans, public opinion, e-mails and phone calls, rallies or even a huge potential voter backlash in November 2010.

They wanted the American people to know that despite what they say and promise about transparency and reaching across the political aisles, they believe they know best what is good for us and the future of our country. It is arrogance and political elitism on steroids.

The president and his administration, along with congressional Democrats, believe the anger and opposition will subside by Election Day in November. They also believe it is just about health care, and the stupid public just does not understand their intentions. That’s their problem. We the stupid do understand their intentions and we are not going to be a sit-down-and-shut-up citizenry.

We the stupid are angry about passage of Health Care Deform, proposed Cap & Trade & Tax and Kill legislation, the pending Employee No Choice Act, tsunami spending and an abundance of sneak-a-taxes they hope we will not notice.

Their intentions are to turn this country into the United States of Europe, but the American people are saying not so fast! They are raising their voices and turning up the heat.

The premier Conservative Political Action Conference, held last month in Washington, D.C., attracted a record number of nearly 10,000 people who paid their own expenses to be there to learn and hear from the most respected conservative leaders in the country.

Last weekend, the Tea Party Express launched its 44-stop tour across country, starting in Senator Harry Reid’s hometown and attracting a record number of attendees in the middle of nowhere called Searchlight, Nevada. It will end in Washington, D.C. on tax day, April 15. Rallies will be held at each stop and the crowd sizes are already exceeding expectations.

The FairTax Nation launched a virtual on-line tax revolt less than a month ago (www.onlinetaxrevolt.com ) and has attracted nearly 250,000 registered participants. It will also culminate with a rally in Washington on April 15.

A Defending the American Dream conference in Wisconsin two weeks ago attracted a record number of people who paid $45 per person to attend, while a first-time Defending the American Dream conference in Georgia last weekend attracted twice as many paid attendees as anticipated.

Hundreds of rallies and Tea Party events are being planned across the country between now and November, and if members of Congress have the courage to hold town hall meetings during their Easter recess, they will be packed to capacity as they were during their August recess of 2009.

These examples may not seem like a tsunami of anger and outrage, but audience reactions and callers to my nightly radio show suggest that it is real and that people are ready to fight to take back their government.

We the stupid are fighting mad, and we are going to fight!

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Ada M. Fisher

When it was put on my heart as a child that I would be a doctor and render service to those in need, I wondered how I would pay for my journey and who would come to my aid. While many of my peers were out having a good time and squandering away their time, talent and resources I buckled down to study, then gave up the marching band which I dearly loved to work in a physician’s office to begin saving money for college and ultimately medical school. I went to the University of North Carolina at Greensboro through work-study, loans for service and awards from the NAACP Legal Defense Fund to help integrate that institution. I even shined shoes for my white female classmates and cleaned more than a toilet or two in my search for cash–all of which seems beneath today’s students too often in search of a free ride.

In 1966, my father whose church pension was $100 monthly received only $107 per month from Social Security after more than thirty years as a pastor. The SS student supplement for me and my brother was $75 each per month until we were 21 which we gave to our parents while we went to work. My father wanted to pay for my medical education, not appreciating that my tuition exceeded three times more than the $2400 he took in retirement. Loans and grants with repayment for service criteria and work doing anything legal still left me with a $54,000 debt in 1975 for my medical education.

In my residency, I ran into tax trouble not understanding business or financial realities like you can’t actually spend your salary — for taxes and other things such as FICA which I knew little about was being deducted. Knowing nothing about saving for retirement I not only tried to learn more, I sacrificed to set aside monies from those already taxed while I planned to live comfortably past 65. Eventually I would appreciate that business is the bed rock of America and would invest my already taxed dollars in the stock market taking great risks to help businesses which would provide jobs for Americans.

I entered the Public Health Service to help repay some of my government assistance, followed shortly thereafter by a stint in the John Umstead Hospital of Butner, NC as the Alcohol Detoxification Director serving a 16 county catchments area for less money than the private sector paid. Then it was off to Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. followed by Amoco Oil Corporation where I found my salary impounded by the federal government to get money given me for loans which had already supposedly been paid off in service through seven years out of my career when I could have made millions. I had no right of recourse from the government which had acknowledged my service but cited a sentence in the loan noting that loans would be repaid only if Congress appropriated the money which it hadn’t. The government got my service for free and took its money as well as pound of flesh. Meanwhile I continued to give over $400 per month to the United Way while employed and donated generously to charities of my choice not those of the government.

Now we move fast forward to find as a baby boomer the retirement age had already been upped for social security even though it wasn’t so when I started putting my money in it. My stock market losses weren’t sufficient for tax rebates though my capital gains would be stolen in taxes with government consent to fund those who hadn’t made plans for a rainy day. 401K and IRA’s which were for my future have lost so much value that they aren’t sufficient for retirement or my personal support. Defined benefits plans which I had in two places have seen one not offered at 65. Fortunes of health which forced my retirement against my will on disability for lack of accommodations only to find those monies heavily taxed and converted to social security at age 62 which is less than I received on disability. Add in that age discrimination means the likelihood of finding meaningful work past 55 is a joke.

So what should we do? Stand up for America and resist the continued massive redistribution of wealth which is Obamacare and all of its social engineering. Since Congress won’t vote to bind itself to the same rules it makes for other citizens, throw the bums out. And if like me you’ve drunk the tea—taxed enough already, then appreciate that we are in need of a new revolution for we are truly facing increasing taxation without representation.

Wake Up America! Let the revolution begin again!

Dr. Ada M. Fisher is A physician, Former County School Board member, licensed secondary education Teacher in mathematics and science as well as the NC Republican national Committee Woman.  Contact her at P. O. Box 777; Salisbury, NC 28145; telephone (704) 223-2321; DrFisher@GETADOCTORINTHEHOUSE.com

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
1 Comment »

By Star Parker

As more Americans get herded onto the government plantation — 30 million more with this new bill — it’s easy to keep them there.

Let’s do a quick thought experiment.

The price of apples keeps going up. The government decides that every American must buy apples. But some can’t afford them.

Government starts controlling how much apple farmers are paid, it mandates that every single American buys apples and subsidizes those under a certain income level so they can.

Will the price of apples go down, stay the same or go up? Or, in economists’ language, if you limit the supply of a commodity and increase demand, will the price of that commodity go up or down?

Did you say “up”? You get an A. But if you did say “up,” you surely are not a Democrat.

Democrats have just committed multitrillions of our money, and, as a bonus, sold a big chunk of American freedom down the road, betting that everything a college freshman learns in basic economics is not true. Or, that health care doesn’t follow the rules of economics. Because our new health-care system is pretty much the apple scenario described above.

Or, maybe they don’t care? Maybe it’s not about economics, but about ideology and political power. And that the real issue is freedom. They think we’ve got too much and that politicians should decide what is fair and who should have what.

A revealing moment during the presidential campaign occurred when, during one debate, ABC’s Charles Gibson pushed then-Sen. Barack Obama about his stated intent to increase capital gains taxes. Gibson brandished data showing that when you cut this tax, government tax revenues increase, and when you raise it, revenue drops (punishing investment surely produces less).

“So, why raise it?” Gibson asked. Obama responded that maybe it won’t happen that way this time. And besides, he said, his motive was “fairness.”

After voters in Massachusetts elected a Republican to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, killing the Democrats’ filibuster-proof Senate majority, many pundits wrote that President Obama had to move to the political center.

I wrote then that this wouldn’t happen because, unlike President Bill Clinton, who did moderate, Obama is a left-wing ideologue. He didn’t run for president to be somebody. He did it to do something. He did it to change America.

As polls showed waning public support for what Democrats were pushing on health care, many assumed they would back off. It was still conceivable that they could stand rules on their head and ram the thing through using the so-called reconciliation procedure. But why would they do it when polls suggested they would be punished in November elections?

But Obama understood that when you are selling dreams, numbers don’t matter.

So, as in the housing and financial debacle we just went through, you commit taxpayer money to subsidize a product to make it look cheaper than it is, you get people to buy it, and when it all comes crashing down, it doesn’t matter. By then you’re long gone.

And, another bonus, as more Americans get herded onto the government plantation — 30 million more with this new bill — it’s easy to keep them there. So the most likely political outcome going forward is higher taxes and income redistribution to pay for it all, entrenching socialism more.

As I have written before, if you want to know where it all leads, look at our inner cities that were long ago taken over by government compassion. This is our future, my fellow Americans.

Oh, back to the apples. Their prices were rocketing up to begin with because government was already controlling and regulating them.

Republicans are mad. But will they be able to entice Americans off the ever-growing government plantation? Will they propose and succeed in selling the bold ideas necessary to turn the basket case we’re becoming around?

We’ll see.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Ken BlackWell

Ken Klukoswki contributed to this report.

There appears to be a concerted effort among the political Left and many mainstream media people to demonize and marginalize the expanding citizen-based movement known as the tea party movement. This effort flows from both a fear of what these tea parties represent and a contempt for everyday Americans. But those ordinary citizens are poised to be the ones laughing when it’s all over, when democracy takes its course.

There seems to be a consensus now among the liberal elite when it comes to the tea parties. Senior administration officials deride them, as do liberal congressional Democrats. These elitists characterize the tea partiers as extremists, some drawing analogies between these ordinary citizens and right-wing militias, fanatics, and religious zealots. Some members of Congress are even saying that these tea party people are racist, which is pretty much the worst label that can be slapped on you in modern politics.

And many leftist talking heads in the media parrot this message, with their own biting editorial, adding that some in the tea party crowd are dangerous. Some talking heads, including some Hollywood actors and others who don’t seem to have any credentials as policy analysts but are nonetheless given air time, are really playing up the racism angle, and even suggest that some tea party attendees may be domestic terrorists.

Try the decaf, people.

Agents of big government and their boosters in the mainstream media seem determined to throw cold water on this growing grassroots movement that is a reaction to the Obama administration’s power grab of the growth and expansion of this country’s central government.

There’s a great deal of diversity among tea party people. Some just want lower taxes, and some also want less regulation. Still others are pro-life voters or Christian conservatives that also want fiscal responsibility. Many others push for conservative judges, while still others hold up signs calling for a restoration of American sovereignty, or protecting America’s borders, or defeating cap and trade or card check.

But they all have two things in common: They all want smaller government, and oppose the trampling of the Constitution embodied in these efforts to radically expand the size and scope of government. And as part of that desire, they want this utterly-ludicrous spending binge to end before it bankrupts all of us.

There’s nothing extremist about that agenda, because common sense is never extreme.

Are there some people attending tea party rallies who are intemperate in their remarks? Sure. Whenever you get tens of thousands of regular folks together, you’ll always get a few who makes comments that they should reconsider. Even then, nothing we’ve seen is worse than the truly outrageous statements that we’ve heard from the Left in recent years about President Bush or Republicans.

Having been engaged in many gatherings of the tea party crowd, it’s offensive that many in the mainstream media are engaging in a systematic effort to marginalize American citizens who are simply trying to take a stand for individual liberty—a stand in opposition to big-government expansion. Also one of us speaking as an African-American (Blackwell), it’s especially insulting to suggest that these people’s opposition to President Obama is driven by racism.

America’s history of grassroots activism goes back to the founding of our republic. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people includes as a necessary element those same average, ordinary people being able to gather and speak out. This freedom to assemble was considered so essential to a free nation that our Founders put it in the First Amendment, right alongside the freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Ironically, these rights are set side-by-side with the freedom of the press, as well. The leftists in the media would do well to remember that their liberty to be a free press comes from the same constitutional amendment as the tea party crowd’s liberty to gather together.

And our elected leaders would do well to remember that the First Amendment exists to protect average people from the government, not the other way around.

Blackwell and Klukowski are the authors of the forthcoming book, The Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency, on sale April 27.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By  Armstrong Williams

It was eerily awkward to hear President Obama’s promise at the State of the Union address earlier this year to eliminate all capital gains taxes on investment in small business. And then, see virtually no reporting of this commitment. After all, he had never promised to lower any taxes on those making more than $250,000; indeed, all he had promised was to reverse the Bush 41 tax cuts and increase taxes on the rich.

Maybe the liberal media did not want to support such a tax cut by reporting it so that specifically the general public and small business employees could hold the President to his promise. Who knows, the liberal media could be frightened that the public might like what they see and start demanding business friendly policy. And maybe, by contrast, the conservative media did not report it because they did not believe what he was saying. They must have no way to navigate through the fog from empty speech after empty speech.

Well, both sides would be right, because in his budget released less than a week later, the President committed to RAISE capital gains taxes on those making more than $250,000 from 15% to 20%, with no hint of any reduction of the existing rate on those making less. Of course, doing anything to the capital gains tax for those under $250,000 is more or less irrelevant, since most venture capital investing is done by wealthy individuals.

The question should be: how much is this going to slow the economy down? One can only remember the effects of the luxury tax in the early 1990’s that was levied on items that our government thought only the rich would buy. In other words, if you were wealthy enough to buy it, Uncle Sam wanted to figure out a way to capitalize on it as well. However, many companies in the luxury markets were hit extremely hard. Uncle Sam had to realize that this tax was doing more harm than good and repeal this tax. What is happening now isn’t much different. Doesn’t this Administration realize that we need high growth business investment? I don’t see anybody else doing it.

It is a different matter to change the tax accounting for hedge and equity fund managers, who today get to pay lower capital gains taxes on earning from hedge and equity partnerships even though they have no personal funds at risk. Warren Buffet was heard once to remark that this put him in a lower bracket for much of his income than his secretary. Yet, congressional efforts to change the tax code to require ordinary income treatment for this kind of partnership income for wealthy Wall Street bankers have repeatedly been blocked by, guess who, Wall Street bankers.

But raising and not lowering the tax on venture capital investment in highly risky start-ups, most of which fail and most of which are hundreds of times more risky than hedge and equity fund investing, is an entirely different matter if you are trying to restart growth in the economy—and you made a promise to do so in a nationally televised address to the nation. One can only assume that President Obama is looking right while going left. Yet there appears to be no one around who is willing to hold his feet to the fire. If he promised policy that could potentially create jobs and alleviate tour nation’s economic stress, then the American people should demand some answers.

No wonder that there is some cynicism about President Obama’s highly public promises–such as his promise to provide more transparency in government. Recall also his very public (and positive) recognition of Congressman Paul Ryan at his now-famous televised appearance at the Republican retreat just two days after the State of the Union, where he described the Congressman as a “sincere guy”  with “some ideas in there [his budget proposal] that I would agree with.” Within days Ryan’s proposal had been thoroughly attacked by the Democratic National Committee at the instance of the White House.

The issue of capital gains taxes on innovation is not trivial –innovation needs investment to thrive and survive. In addition, if innovators know there will be a reward for their work, then they will do what they do best: innovate. I highly doubt that in our free country that one will find citizens who are willing to pour their life, including their resources, into a project that won’t benefit them in some way. And in the game of business and market innovation, that way is a financial reward.

It could be argued that Bush 41 lost reelection because then Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell blocked enactment of the cut in 1989 by beginning on that issue the Senate practice of requiring 60 votes for most legislation. If 41 had been successful, it is unlikely that his later agreement to raise ordinary income rates slightly would have caused as much trouble for him politically as it did.

Given the high drama of a proposed reduction in the capital gains rate 20 years ago, one might have expected more public debate about a total elimination of the tax on small business, which even the most conservative Republicans have never had the guts to seriously propose. But, then again, maybe the media silence is appropriate, because the commitment was apparently never meant seriously to begin with.

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 Bob Morrison

With the announcement in Annapolis of a major expansion of Maryland State Archives, the time is ripe to move the statue of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney (pronounced TAW-nee) from its prominent place in front of the historic Old State House to the new State Archives site. This would enable Maryland, without disrespect to Taney, to give pride of place to the greatest Marylander, Frederick Douglass.

A citizens group in Easton, Maryland, has come forward with a plan to honor Frederick Douglass in the county where he was born. They’ve engaged one of America’s great sculptors, Jay Hall Carpenter, to do a statue of the great nineteenth century author, editor, and orator. They are right to want to honor Douglass, but Annapolis is the better venue to assure that hundreds of thousands will see his statue and learn from his great example.

The case can be made that Frederick Douglass stands with Abraham Lincoln as one of the two greatest political thinkers of their age. Douglass, we should remember, was far better known throughout the nation and the world in 1857 than Abraham Lincoln was. Only with the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates in Illinois in 1858 would this former one-term Congressman gain national prominence. Stephen A. Douglas, the racist U.S. Senator from Illinois won that election, but Lincoln’s carefully reasoned arguments against the spread of slavery into the territories persuaded tens of thousands. They gained him a national following.

So did the arguments of Frederick Douglass. In a flood of books, newspaper editorials, and speeches, Frederick Douglass argued for freedom and justice. He even disagreed strongly and publicly with President Lincoln. Facing the most serious threat to the Union in U.S. history, Lincoln proceeded with great caution. He could not afford to alienate slaveholding states like Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland, Lincoln argued. These states had resisted disunion but their loyalty would be sorely tested if Lincoln moved too soon on Emancipation.

Douglass thought two hundred fifty years of injustice, of slavery, was enough. He pointed out passionately that slavery was the root cause of the Civil War. He could never accept an end to the war that might leave slavery in place.

When Lincoln finally issued his Emancipation Proclamation, purely as a military measure to help put down rebellion, Douglass demanded that freed slaves be enlisted for the Union armies. Don’t try to fight the rebels with one hand tied behind your back, he publicly appealed to Lincoln. Douglass urged the President, as he poetically put it, to “employ your strong Sable Arm.”

Over the course of the terrible war, Lincoln moved toward Douglass’ position on every disputed point: Unconditional emancipation, non-colonization of the freed slaves, recruitment of black soldiers, affirming U.S. citizenship for freed people, and voting rights for freedmen.

By the war’s end, there were nearly two hundred thousand black soldiers and sailors serving the United States, a greater number than whites serving in the Confederate armies and navy. It was a strong Sable Arm, indeed.

Ever since the 1800 slave insurrection in Haiti, with its 100,000 deaths, white Southerners dreaded their own slaves. “We have a wolf by the ears,” wrote Thomas Jefferson, “and can neither safely hold on or let him go.” Jefferson recognized the injustice of slavery and said if there were ever a race war in America, God would not side with the slaveholders.

By pressing so hard and so loudly for freed slaves to be enlisted in the Union army, Frederick Douglass may have spared America that long-feared race war. Tens of thousands of young black men got a rifle on their shoulder and the letters “U.S.” on their belt buckles. Douglass wrote there would not be a power on earth that could deny freedom and citizenship to such brave warriors. He was right. But it also assured there would be no bloody revolution as in Haiti, as in France. Like the famous dog that did not bark, Jefferson’s wolf never howled.

Frederick Douglass paid a remarkable tribute to the martyred Lincoln in 1876. Speaking at the dedication of the first Lincoln monument in Washington, a statue paid for wholly by free black Americans, Douglass said: “Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed cold, tardy, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.”

Frederick Douglass surely deserves a monument.  Chief Justice Taney, a Marylander, was the author of the infamous 1857 Dred Scott ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court. That ruling, along with John Brown’s suicidal raid on Harper’s Ferry, sparked the terrible Civil War. Taney wrote: “The black man has no rights that the white man is bound to respect.”

Taney’s statue should be moved. Before that despicable Dred Scott ruling, Taney served the nation in some very honorable ways. And, as Americans, we don’t try to hide our past. The State Archives actually leads to the Old State House and is a fine place for the Taney statue.

By any measure, Frederick Douglass is a giant of America’s history. Honoring him in Annapolis, the capital of his native state, would be especially appropriate.  American tourists flock and foreign visitors flock to this beautiful city to see the historic capitol where Gen. George Washington resigned his military commission to Congress. These visitors would all learn about Douglass’s legacy. In Annapolis are the U.S. Naval Academy, the sailing museum, the Alex Haley and Thurgood Marshall Memorials, and many other attractions. Let Frederick Douglass stand for freedom and justice there.

###

Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison are senior fellows at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

By Eric M. Wallace, PhD

“We wish to plead our own cause. Too long have others spoken for us. Too long has the public been deceived by misrepresentations, in things which concern us dearly… “ (Editors of Freedom’s Journal Newspaper, 1827)

This past week (March 20^th 2010) in Chicago, almost 183 years after the publication of the first black newspaper (March 16^th 1827), noted commentator and speaker Tavis Smiley convened a group of African American “leaders” to discuss the Black agenda. The summit was to address the question, “Is there a need for a Black Agenda?” In reality, as revealed in ensuing discussion, the real question became: “The growing disparity between Whites and Blacks, and how the first black President is addressing these issues? And equally, should he be held accountable, as past presidents”?

Not surprisingly, the panel of twelve was stacked with “left” leaning Black political activist and scholars who’s predictable answers [with few exceptions from Dorothy Tillman]—never veered far from the same old ‘song and dance’. The only thing missing was the token “black conservative” Smiley typically includes to ensure a ‘fair and balanced’ outcome for the famous “State of Black America” address.

Since there were no “token” conservatives on the panel [although, there were a number of us scattered throughout the audience], I consider it my duty to give you the opinion from one who would have loved to take part on the panel—to express the “other” point of view.

There were a number of things that stood out to me but three, in particular, which need to be addressed. They are the mischaracterization of the Constitution, the misquoting and misinterpretation of the Bible and the lack of historical context.

Early in the discussions, panel participants Dr. Dyson and Dr. West dismissed the Constitution as a pro-slavery and patriarchal document. Hence, any argument based on constitutional legitimacy was basically ejected from the conversation in a matter of a few words. But I would have reminded these scholars that the esteemed Frederick Douglass [whose name was mentioned as an historical backdrop to this discussion] would disagree with their assessment. Douglass initially viewed the Constitution as a pro-slavery document; but later changed his mind. He said of the preamble that:

Its language is “we the people”; not we the white people, not even we the citizens, not we the privileged class, not we the high, not we the low, but we the people; not we the horses, sheep, and swine, and wheel-barrows, but we the people; and if Negroes are people, they are included in the benefits for which the Constitution of the United States of America was ordained and established.” (The Constitution of the United States: Is it Pro-Slavery or Anti-Slavery?” Life and Writings of Frederick Douglass, Vol. 2, 473.)

The quick dismissal of the ‘rule of law’ for our country negates all arguments about the Constitutionally of a government program or subsidy.

Again, Douglass argued that the Constitution, taken literally, was an anti-slavery document. It was in the manipulation of the text by disingenuous people that the Constitution was misinterpreted, just like the Bible, and used to condone slavery. Douglass asserted:

“They have given the Constitution a slaveholding interpretation. I admit it. Thy have committed innumerable wrongs against the Negro in the name of the Constitution. Yes, I admit it all; and I go with him who goes farthest in denouncing these wrongs. But it does not follow that the Constitution is in favour of these wrongs because the slaveholders have given it that interpretation. To be consistent in his logic, the City Hall speaker must follow the example of some of his brothers in America — he must not only fling away the Constitution, but the Bible. The Bible must follow the Constitution, for that, too, has been interpreted for slavery by American divines.”

This reference to the Bible leads me to my second observation. The panelists (albeit progressives) love to site the Bible to justify their actions as “just and pure” with an over abiding care for their fellow man. Strangely, what they don’t see is how they misquote and take out of context the biblical mandates. The most commonly misused of these mandates is found in Matthew 25:31-46, in general, and verses 40, 45, in particular. In these verses the Son of Man (Jesus) or the King returns to judge the nations (ethnos—people). People will be divided into two groups the sheep and the goats. The sheep are judged first then the goats. Both are judge based on how they treated the “least of these” who are described as the hungry, the thirsty, and the stranger. Progressives see these texts as mandates for what government should be doing—feeding the hungry, giving water to the thirsty, housing the homeless and, now, health care—basically taking care of the poor. But the text says nothing of the kind. This is not addressed to “governments”—but to “individuals”. All the preceding parables and illustrations are about ‘personal responsibility’. Starting in Chapter 24: 45 through 25:30 Jesus relates stories of the Faithful servant (24:45-51) the Wise and foolish virgins (25:1-13) and the Parable of the Talents (25:14-30). The context here is that of being ready for the return of the King, and one’s faithfulness to His teachings (Matthew 5-7).

There is absolutely no government mandate in these texts. They are mandates to the Church, in general, and individuals, in particular. Those who follow the clear teachings of Jesus enter into eternity: those who do not, enter into eternal punishment. It is not the government’s job to clothe, to feed, visit the sick and imprisoned or to force people to do it. In these texts people obey the King because they are in relationship with Him.

The panelists repeatedly used these, and other scriptures, to defend Government largess, especially for the alleviation of hardship for people of color. Unfortunately, what they fail to understand is that any attempt to engage one’s government in benevolence generally emasculates its recipients. Let me call on the words of Frederick Douglass again:

In regard to the colored people, there is always more that is benevolent, I perceive, than just, manifested towards us. What I ask for the Negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us… I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! … And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! … your interference is doing him positive injury. “What the Black Man Wants” — speech in Boston, Massachusetts (1865-01-26).

Now, the words of Booker T. Washington: “No greater injury can be done to any youth than to let him feel that because he belongs to this or that race he will be advanced in life regardless of his own merits or efforts.” Both, Douglass and Washington, warn against the temptation to ‘do for others, what they can do for themselves’.

Ironically, one of the most interesting comments from the summit was that of Louis Farrakhan, who on issues of theology and race we’d find few reasons to agree, but on issues of economics and self-help I found myself in agreement. He chastised the idea that government should (or could) do anything to help Black people. I would agree; and take it one step further to suggest that we need the government’s help means that we are somehow unable to fend for ourselves. I reject this notion without reservation. Farrakhan whose eloquent denouncement of “victim hood” fell short when, like everyone else at the table, he still wanted something from Uncle Sam.

Again, I’m reminded of the words of Douglass. He said that, “Our destiny is largely in our own hands. If we find, we shall have to seek. If we succeed in the race of life it must be by our own energies, and by our own exertions. Others may clear the road, but we must go forward, or be left behind in the race of life.” There is no room in this declaration of Black independence for government programs.

Lastly, the panel’s historical background was, and is, skewed. Not only did they fail to recognize the “conservative” ideology of many of our black historical leaders (Douglass, Washington, and others)—they failed to include the role of the Church in their Black Agenda Summit. How do you have a Black agenda without engaging the Church in the conversation? Where was (is) the moral outcry not only against infant mortality rates, but also for the rate at which African American women abort their babies? How do you talk about Black-on-Black crime rates without mentioning the transforming power of the gospel message that has been part of the black experience throughout the ages? It was the Church and the gospel message that gave slaves (and former slaves) the will to press on when the odds were against them.

Dr. King lamented in the Letter from a Birmingham jail that the Church used to be an agent of change. He stated that, “In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society.” This summit underscores an unfortunate fact that the Church and the Gospel of Jesus Christ no longer hold a place of prominence in the hearts and minds of these ‘Leaders.’ It is my humble opinion that without the Church our society, in general, and the black community, in particular, will never reach the full potential that God intended for us.

It leaves one to wonder if Booker T. Washington’s observations still holds true today when he said:

“There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs-partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”

I began this article with a quote from the editor’s of the Freedom’s Journal Newspaper (1827). Without question, we still suffer the same fate: There are far too many who “speak” on behalf of the Black community who don’t necessarily speak for us—nor do they share our values. Hence, a new standard is emerging (Freedom’s Journal Magazine), which calls upon the Church to “Stand for what we say we believe and actively engage in the political process that represents us.” (Editors, FJM 2008). The question is, will the Church heed this call to once again become a ‘thermostat’ capable of transforming society’s mores?

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
2 Comments »

For Release: March 24, 2010
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or project21@nationalcenter.org or Judy Kent at (703) 759-7476 or jkent@nationalcenter.org

Washington, D.C.: - The following are comments by members of the Project 21 black conservative leadership network on the signing of health care legislation by President Obama yesterday and on continuing accusations of racism by Tea Party activists protesting the bill:

“Saying that health care is a civil right is as paternalistic as it is just plain wrong, and is just one more example of liberal nanny-state politics.  Forcing Obamacare down our throats is going to come back to bite many lawmakers.  The American people are not going to stand for this.” - Project 21 Member Darryn “Dutch” Martin

“I find it very hard to believe that anyone called Representative Lewis the n-word.  It probably isn’t close to being beneath them to lie and invent such an occurrence for emotional and political gain.” - Project 21 Member Lisa Fritsch

“It was disgraceful of House Speaker Pelosi to exploit blacks’ past fight for civil rights with the progressive goal of making health care a right.  Even more disappointing was seeing black congressmen join in her procession to make all Americans dependent on the government plantation for health care services.” - Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli

“Liberals sneer at the patriotism of tea party activist as inappropriate, yet they can’t seem to keep themselves from linking their agenda items to the civil rights movement.  Speaker Pelosi linking arms with Representative Lewis as a way of recalling Selma was way over the top.  It’s a wonder she didn’t ask the fire department to turn a hose on them as well.” - Project 21 Member Bishop Council Nedd II

“Pelosi comparing this abysmal act to civil rights and the march to Selma is like comparing moonshine to rose petals.  I am sick of people like her cheapening the heroic acts of blacks who were denied their most basic rights by claiming a similarity of their contemptuous actions to the denial of the right of a people in a free country to lodge, to eat and to purchase homes where they chose.” - Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie

Background: On March 20, members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) claimed individual tea party protestors shouted epithets at them as they went to and from the Capitol.  YouTube videos (available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fdaPZx1cpU and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SCs6pSE8_I) of CBC members walking through groups of protestors, however, do not contain any epithets, much less live up to an assertion by Representative John Lewis (D-GA) that “I haven’t heard anything like this in 40, 45 years.  Since the march to Selma, really.”

Representative Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO)’s claim that a protestor spat on him led to Capitol Police intervention but no arrest.

On March 21, as the final debate began on Obamacare in the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi linked arms with Representative Lewis and members of the congressional leadership to march to the Capitol.  It was an allusion to the anniversary of the beginning of the 1965 march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama in the wake of the “Bloody Sunday” attack on civil rights marchers earlier that month.

Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives since 1992, is sponsored by The National Center for Public Policy Research (www.nationalcenter.org).

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »

For Release: March 22, 2010 Black conservatives opposed to government-run health care routinely are called the “n-word” and worse, says Deneen Borelli, full-time Fellow with the Project 21 black leadership network — by liberals. To black lawmakers allegedly receiving the same treatment, Borelli said: “Welcome to my world! I’ve been called worse than the N-word by alleged enlightened liberals for the outrage of expressing my views on topics such as the threat of government overreach on things such as ObamaCare, climate change legislation, the Second Amendment and pro-growth economics.” “It should go without saying that racial slurs are offensive and uncalled for,” added Borelli. “But progressives seem far more aggressive in hurling racist comments than Tea Party members. I find that all the time on my e-mail after I appear on television or radio.” Responding to comments made by Representative Charlie Rangel (D-NY) about the racial aspects and alleged racial tone of Tea Party rallies opposed to a government takeover of America’s health care system, Borelli said:  ”In an attempt to inject race into the national debate about government running our nation’s health care system, Representative Charlie Rangel made false allegations about the Tea Parties when he said that ‘[y]ou don’t see any black folks in these groups. Ever, ever, ever, ever, ever.’ Considering he’s never invited me — or any of his conservative colleagues, for that matter — for insight on reworking one-sixth of our economy, he obviously must not realize I am black. He also failed to see the other black faces I’ve seen at the many tea party rallies I’ve attended and spoken at over the past few months.” Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives since 1992, is sponsored by The National Center for Public Policy Research (www.nationalcenter.org). - 30 -

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
1 Comment »

By Herman Cain

In December 2008, before President Obama was even sworn in, he said “deficits don’t matter.” Although it’s not true as economist Brian Wesbury explained in an article dated December 8, 2008, President Obama and the Democrat-led Congress have shown that that’s how they roll by increasing the national debt to nearly $4 trillion in Obama’s first year.

The national debt increased by that same amount under President Bush in eight years. That’s just an annoying fact to this administration and this Congress so they just choose to ignore it.

In the president’s last ditch effort to pass Health Care Deform legislation, he and the Democrats have also demonstrated that they ignore facts just as well as they ignore deficits. While the administration and the Democrats have bought enough votes to pass this historic legislative disaster, they continued to stick to their talking points about how great the legislation will be for everyone, while persistently ignoring compelling facts that suggest otherwise.

One of the more egregious factual deceptions using accounting gimmicks, such as the “Doc fix” in Medicare, is the claim by the president and the Democrats that this plan would reduce the deficit by more than $1 trillion over 20 years. Never mind that they had said earlier “over 10 years”. But if you make assumptions far enough into the future it is almost impossible to prove otherwise.

Fact: No government social program has ever hit a budget in the history of this country, and we are supposed to believe that the biggest new bureaucracy in history will actually save money. I don’t think so.

Secondly, according to Americans for Tax Reform, the ObamaCare plan has over $600 billion in new taxes that would hit all taxpayers either directly or indirectly. The bill is a politician’s sneak-a-taxes dream.

Fact: When you impose billions of fees and taxes on the insurance and health care industries, those businesses will pass those taxes on to the consumer. They have to make a profit to survive. But then maybe, the administration and Congress do not want some industries and businesses to survive. I’m just saying!

Third, if people do not want to believe that we would end up like Canada, England and Germany with out-of-control health care costs, and rationed lower-quality health care, then just look at the Massachusetts plan. Fact: Their state treasurer just announced that their well-intended plan is about to bankrupt the state. He also predicts that the same thing will happen to the entire country if ObamaCare passes.

Fourth, mandating health insurance on individuals and businesses is not the land of the free. Singling out certain industries and imposing new taxes to help pay for ObamaCare is not a free market system. Government intrusion will eventually destroy the free-market system, because it will eventually cause business risk-takers to stop taking risks to maintain and create jobs.

Fact: People do not want to work just to pay taxes to Uncle Sam, and to be told how much profit they can make.

The majority of the people in this country still believe in capitalism, not socialism. They believe in limited government, not tsunami government spending, which is destroying our currency and economy. People who take risks to start and run businesses do not want to be constrained by too much government regulation. And most of us are not looking for a bailout if we fail.

We just want the government to get out of our way, win or lose. That’s the spirit of the American people that founded this country.

The president and the Democrats in Congress may not think deficits matter, nor that facts matter, nor that the Constitution matters, but the people of this country believe strongly that they do.

That’s a fact and the people will not be ignored.

Tags: Uncategorized by Dr. Eric Wallace
No Comments »