Entries Tagged as 'Uncategorized'

Wright is Still Wrong!

By Harry R. Jackson, Jr.

This past week Rev. Jeremiah Wright emerged again from the ashes of obscurity to the spotlight. Like the mythical phoenix rising again from the fires of death, Wright is still politically alive after becoming a symbol of racism and division for mainstream America.

His actions mirror his friend, Louis Farrakhan, who has recently attempted to malign Jews worldwide. The question I would like to answer here is, “How can such vehement hate mongers like Wright and Farrakhan survive so long in a land that longs so much for racial and religious equality?”  Let’s explore the answer as we look at the current status of Rev. Wright.  How did he arise again?

Wright recently taught a weeklong course at the Chicago Theological Seminary (CTS). The school is a 150-year old institution affiliated with the United Church of Christ (UCC). As many may not remember, Rev. Wright’s former church (Trinity United Church of Christ) is the largest church in the UCC denomination. This denomination supports Rev. Wright’s assessment of America’s moral condition and motivations. CTS represents institutions that have continued to embrace the famed Chicago minister long after he dropped off the national radar.

The Website of CTS carries this revealing description of their mission and worldview:  ”Since our beginning, Chicago Theological Seminary pushes at the growing boundaries of the church in order to make our faith relevant and transform our society in the image of justice.” It seems that this school’s understanding of “biblical justice” is very different from the views of other mainstream Protestant or evangelical churches. Groups with a socialistic view of politics and an affinity towards liberation theology are seemingly the only ones that have thrown their arms wide open to Jeremiah Wright.

The New York Times and Fox News carried several stories this week that have exposed Wright’s incendiary language. For example, the news outlets related his assessment of the civil rights movement; it “was always about becoming white,” Wright opined. Another quote was “White folk done took this country. You’re in their home and they’re going to let you know it.”  Rev. Wright also compared the United States with apartheid South Africa during his CTS seminar. Finally, the former pastor told the class that they will never “be a brother to white folk.”

While the news outlets were shocked that the reverend was bold enough to repeat the same kind of rhetoric that almost derailed the president’s candidacy in 2008, those of us close to the ground recognize that Wright has continued to sing the same song anywhere he could for the last two years. In fact, earlier this year, Rev. Wright spoke to packed services at a DC church related to his United Church of Christ denomination.

ow does he stay on the speaking circuit, despite his imbalanced rhetoric? It is very simple - he paints himself as a victim of the same system that he claims immorally persecutes others. Wright’s methods are as unorthodox as his message. Like Louis Farrakhan, he has learned to manipulate the media for his own gains. For example, in March 2010, a huge awards gala was conducted in Chicago. Wright presented himself as a political martyr and victim of a repressive, right wing machine. He even went so far as to award himself, Father Michael Pfleger, and Minister Louis Farrakhan with “Living Legend Awards.” Both local and national media carried the story of the awards gala. This kind of earned media was like giving Wright a huge “free” commercial. Such news stories are more credible to the average individual than spending millions of dollars on traditional commercials.

To my knowledge, Fox News was the only organization that disclosed the fact that the awards were actually given by an organization that Wright controls. Unfortunately, folks like Wright are pushing for people to return to race-based politics. In a Wright-oriented world, blacks would always vote Democrat and whites of both parties would not be trusted. He would advocate for gay marriage, gay clergy in Christian churches, and freedom for impoverished women to have government paid abortions. Further, he would cast America’s military interventions in crises all over the world as imperialistic and greed-based.

It’s time for the nation to move beyond Jeremiah Wright’s negativity and tackle the problems of race and generational poverty in America. Blacks and whites have to come together if we are to solve the nation’s biggest problems. Whites need to be willing to work with and for blacks and other minorities in business, and they need to elect more qualified blacks to public office. On the other hand, there will have to be some fundamental rethinking of principles and values in the black community. All minorities will have to decide how long they intend to live under the thumb of politicians who manipulate them with accusations of conspiracies and institutional racism - with no proof.   One of the major signs that change is at the door is the fact that 31 African Americans are running for Congress in the Republican Party primaries in 2010. If just a third of these people win, there will be a shift in the racial dynamics of party politics.

Years ago, The High Impact Leadership Coalition developed an important document - “The Black Contract With America On Moral Values.”   We said the blacks and whites should be able to come together on six critical points. Four of these arenas are still very important to our nation’s advancement such as:  family protection, poverty alleviation/wealth creation, educational reform, and prison reform. True problem solving in these areas can lead to a better America, but the nation’s challenges will not solve themselves. We need some champions!  A handful of people taking initiative can transform our nation for the better.  What about you? Do you want to make a real difference? Perhaps the best way to articulate our personal choice is to ask the question: ” Do you want to be Wright …or Right?

Let’s Change the Nation for the Better!

In Politics, Some Too Old to Govern

By Armstrong Williams

In our great system of American government, we have come to believe that age is a good thing. The older our elected officials — the theory goes — the better equipped and more seasoned they are to handle the challenges of running a government across our continental country. After all, experience is what voters crave, no? President Obama himself had to overcome early questions about his relative inexperience, and he worked hard to debunk those misconceptions.

Wisdom is also a coveted hallmark of someone who’s logged a few more years in elected office. That can’t be a bad thing. I’ve never met a politician who didn’t pray for the wisdom of Solomon as he dealt with the most difficult of legislative matters.

But does too much gray affect an office holder’s gray matter? Is there such a thing as being too old to capably lead and govern such a massive nation of laws and regulations? At what point does a legislator become so debilitated he or she is no longer able to effectively execute the duties of office? And how can we as a voting public know when those mental and physical thresholds have been crossed?

Knowingly or not, we face these questions today.

As our nation has aged, so, too, has our Congress, perhaps even more acutely. A 2008 Congressional Research Service report found that the 110th Congress that year was the oldest of any Congress in U.S. history. The Congress currently in session today broke even that record. The average age of senators at the beginning of this 111th Congress was 62.7 years. By comparison, the average age in the first Congress more than 200 years ago was a mere 47.

Clearly, longevity and the miracles of modern medicine explain away these differentials. Yet a closer look at the age breakdowns reveal a heavy tilt in the upper chamber towards those entering or currently in the eighth decade of their lives.

As of last week, four sitting U.S. senators are currently in their 80s, and 22 are in their 70s. One senator — the indefatigable Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia who passed away yesterday was 92. Even at that tender age, Mr. Byrd did not reach the pinnacle of my old boss and mentor. Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina who was 100 years old when he left the Senate.

But is that a good thing? Is our nation better off because individual lawmakers tried to outlast one another and die in their jobs?

As many know before his death, Mr. Byrd suffered from Parkinson’s disease and was in increasingly failing health. He rarely got to the floor, leaving most of the legislative heavy lifting to his staff. In the final years of his tenure in office, Mr. Thurmond could barely maneuver the halls of the Senate without an ever-present aide to assist him. Was he in the moment? I would argue “no.” Which meant the voters of South Carolina were being short-changed.

Yes, Mr. Thurmond’s staffers embodied the principles of their boss. But they weren’t elected; Strom Thurmond was. And he owed it to them to fight until he was physically unable to fight no more, but more importantly, know when to step down.

Some will say age should have nothing to do with an elected official’s desire to remain in office. Ronald Reagan proved that point with remarkable grace. Elected to his first term at 69, Mr. Reagan quickly silenced critics regarding his age, telling an audience in 1984, “I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”

Set aside the stigma of a number for the moment and examine what policy positions come from these geriatric-minded members of the Senate.

Who could forget Sen. Ted Stevens’ rant in the Senate chamber in 2006 when the Alaska Republican likened the Internet to a “series of tubes” that are filled with various messages? That debate involved a serious issue in today’s tech world concerning net neutrality, and yet the 83-year old senator’s remarks devolved it into something more fitting for a second grader.

Then there’s Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. His private comments in which he stated Barack Obama would be a successful candidate in the 2008 presidential race because he is “light skinned” and spoke with “no Negro dialect” were perfectly acceptable when Mr. Reid was growing up in the 1940s! That’s how folks talked back then.

And therein lies the problem.

Mr. Reid’s gaffe was less one of a “senior moment” and more of simply being out of touch with today’s cultural and socially acceptable standards. If the leader of the greatest deliberative body in the free world doesn’t have the mental faculty to know he can no longer refer to African Americans as “negroes” then we have serious problems.

Was Mr. Stevens too old to know better? Had he ever even used the Internet? Neither matter. The point here is Mr. Stevens himself simply couldn’t keep pace with today’s pressing policy issues. Could his staff step in and take care of the finer details? Perhaps, but did the Founders really envision a Congress run by unelected employees?

Congressional staffs alone can not, nor should they be expected to, cover up the legislative foibles of sitting senators who don’t take the time to fully understand this rapidly evolving world we live in.

And we as the recipients of the policies these “elders” enact are entitled to their personal and vested involvement.

Mr. Reagan quipped, “Thomas Jefferson once said, ‘We should never judge a president by his age, only by his works.’ And ever since he told me that, I stopped worrying.”

Unfortunately, I’m still worrying. Worrying that our oldest lawmakers are more consumed with the trappings of the office they hold than the work they provide, leaving the dirty work to faceless staff members who are neither elected nor directly accountable for their actions.

America Rising

Strangled by government

By Star Parker

A cab ride in Washington, D.C., on a weekday afternoon in June gives you a feeling of the national mood. It’s oppressively hot and humid, and the traffic is horrible. By the time you reach your destination, you feel strangled and oppressed and just want relief.

Amidst the current lethargic economic recovery, with unemployment still just under 10 percent, the one growth stock remains government. Washington, D.C., is a boom town today, as the answer our current administration proposes for every single problem and challenge facing us is more government.

Government spending is now 25 percent of our GDP. This is 5 percentage points higher than the average of the last 50 years.

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll reflects the nation’s nasty mood. Sixty-two percent now say the country is “on the wrong track,” compared to 43 percent saying this a year and a half ago.

A fascinating online dynamic map display, called “The Decline: The Geography of a Recession” (you can easily find by googling), shows color-coded unemployment levels county by county throughout the country. Areas where unemployment is 4-6 percent are orange and red. Areas of 7-10 percent unemployment are purple.

The map display starts in January 2007 when national unemployment was 4.6 percent. It shows a sea of orange and red across the nation. You then click, and it changes by month, getting increasingly purple, until ending in March 2010 with national unemployment at 9.7 percent.

Looking at this picture of the whole nation swathed with the purple color of high unemployment, you can’t miss the tiny island of orange and red in the midst of all this. It’s, of course, the region of our nation’s capital.

Another bold graphic of our dismal state of affairs is an outstanding series of charts on the nation’s fiscal situation put together by Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation. You just can’t get a clearer picture of the cliff we are about to drive over.

Total government spending (federal, state and local) per American household is now $47,000. This is almost triple what government spending per household was in 1965.

But consider further that this $47,000 government spending per household is almost equal to the nation’s median household income – about $51,000.

In 1970 government spending per household was about half of median household income.

Needless to say, all of this would be just fine if there were a shred of evidence that government spending us into oblivion made us better off. Not only is there no such evidence, but the proof in the pudding is the opposite.

Look around the world. The economies that are the freest are the ones that are the most prosperous. Those with the largest encroachments of government are the ones that perform the worst.

A study released a few weeks ago by three professors at Harvard Business School boldly challenged common perceptions about the benefits of government spending.

Incumbent members of Congress, particularly if they are powerful committee chairmen, often tout their value to their districts by the amount of federal money they bring home.

According to this new study, it turns out that this isn’t such good news. The government money simply displaces the private sector. According to the study, “the average firm in the chairman’s state did not benefit at all from the increase in spending.” Rather, “firms significantly cut physical and R&D spending, reduce employment, and experience lower sales.”

Economics, the joke goes, is common sense made difficult.

It just takes common sense to appreciate that our economy is not recovering because it is being strangled by government.

This will continue until we start going in the other direction. Cutting back government – spending and taxes – and unleashing again private American citizens to work and live free.

NewsBusted

Pushing Back for Truth

By Ken Blackwell

Left wing blogs have their dander up. They’re attacking me for saying that Elena Kagan favors cloning human beings. Once again, they are trying to confuse the public about what’s involved in cloning humans. Just because they favor killing the embryonic human being after they are done experimenting upon it, but before implanting it in a woman’s womb, they think they are against cloning humans. But they’re not. And neither is Kagan.

It’s almost the same thing as when semantic gymnasts in the pro-cloning camp say they’re not cloning humans, they’re just doing “somatic cell nuclear transfers (SCNT).” In fact, that’s the longer, more technical description of what cloning is.

The Clinton-appointed National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) recognized this simple fact in 1997—before political correctness overtook all these discussions:

The Commission began its discussions fully recognizing that any effort in humans to transfer a somatic cell nucleus into an enucleated egg involves the creation of an embryo, with the apparent potential to be implanted in utero and developed to term.

This is not conservative doctrine. Not Christian dogma. This is simple, scientific fact. It used to be recognized by all until the left muddied the waters.

The left also takes issue with my comments that Elena Kagan favors government censorship of political books and pamphlets. That’s an argument they should take up with Chief Justice John Roberts. The Chief Justice concurred in the 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission:

“The Government [as represented by Solicitor General Elena Kagan] urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern. Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations—as the major ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is the foundation of our democracy.”

As President Reagan often said, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.

Tim Scott Wins Run off in South Carolina

Wake Up, Lazy Parents!


By Mychal Massie

A pendulum can swing only so far in one direction before it must return.  Conservatives should take this to heart as President Obama currently swings America to the far left.

We should take heart because our day will likely come again.  But I say likely because, while Obama may only blight the fabric of our republic for a short time, there must be honorable, educated and durable individuals available to clean up the detritus Obama and his minions leave behind.

In an attempt to change the laws of physics and keep the pendulum on the left, progressives have a formidable plan that must be overcome.  This responsibility will fall to parents, and that poses problems all by itself.

Those protesting the Vietnam War, for example, didn’t disappear after we abandoned our South Vietnamese allies.  They traded their tie-dyed T-shirts and peasant dresses for Dockers and Donna Karan.  They now teach at the universities they once protested where they continue the revolution – something former leftist David Horowitz has spent the better part of his life exposing.

As our children enter their formative years, these tenured radicals seek to shape their politics.  If a student rebels, the former counterculturists unleash the real wrath of the modern establishment.

We can complain about what happens to our children when they go off to college, but the question that begs an answer is what we are prepared to do about it as parents?

We must arm our children with the truth so that they are able to withstand the wiles of nefarious teachers whose goal is to make our children into replacements for themselves.

Our children can be leaders or followers.  Which they become is up to us.  It isn’t based on income, the car we drive or even their school they attend.  It depends on how important we view our role as parents.

I am speaking specifically of equipping our children with sound biblical, constitutional and historical truth and a political awareness that will prevent them from falling prey to the lies and misrepresentations being dispensed in classrooms today.

But it’s more than political indoctrination that breeds concern.

Your child may be promoted to the next grade each year, but are they truly ready for advancement?  If your child just graduated from college, are they really prepared for the world?

How much longer can we afford to lower the expectations of our children and remain the leader of the free world?  How many times have you watched a young person in a retail job struggle to make change if the register doesn’t tell him?  If young people are unable to do basic computations, how will they know the government is stealing from them?

People naturally want to do what’s important to them.  That parents are doing so at the expense of their children is more evident by the day.  Parents seemingly relegate their children to underachievement because, regardless of what they claim, the future of their children is not a priority.

The pendulum that now swings far left is beginning to swing back.  Will America’s children be prepared to seize upon the opportunity of change and make a difference, or will they ignore it because — in the absence of proper instruction — it has no value to them?

Throughout history, societies have risen, fallen or stagnated on the preparedness of its youth.  While I see and speak to young people every day who are prepared and show potential, I am painfully aware of countless numbers who are not.  More often than not, they are at-risk because inept parents are content to let someone else do their job or think they are doing enough when they’re not.

One thing is certain: if we don’t prepare our children, the left will.  And little portends more darkly for our future than to miss opportunities through a lack of trying.

#  #  #

Mychal Massie is the chairman of the black leadership network Project 21.  Comments may be sent to Project21@nationalcenter.org.

Degeneration of Democracy

By Thomas Sowell

When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics. Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler’s rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.

“Useful idiots” was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.

Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive. In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.

The president’s poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.

Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.

And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP’s oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated. But our government is supposed to be “a government of laws and not of men.” If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion– or $50 billion or $100 billion– then so be it.

But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without “due process of law.” Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.

With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.

If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don’t believe in Constitutional government. And, without Constitutional government, freedom cannot endure. There will always be a “crisis”– which, as the president’s chief of staff has said, cannot be allowed to “go to waste” as an opportunity to expand the government’s power.

Read more….

Eye on the Prize, not BP

By Ada Fisher

As I watch my 1000+ retirement shares of BP slowly sink in the murky abyss of unrelenting gushes of oil, I don’t personally give a damn if the BP CEO yachts or Obama plays golf; they might as well since both haven’t a clue what to do.

First, the president’s panel to investigate Deepwater Disaster contains not one oil man or American Petroleum Institute member which is ludicrous.   Unless you have been involved in oil drilling you don’t know the dynamics of the process and safeguard procedures currently available for deployment to address the issues.  There should be someone in occupational medicine with veterinary experience to address the human and animal concerns at play as well as the threat to the food chain for man and beast.  The dumb remarks of Chris Matthews on Hardball saying early on that the government should nationalize oil was stupid for we have neither the expertise to do such nor as we are currently observing regulatory oversight structure for both are proving inadequate and inept.

Second, the help we need is not being invoked.  As Bush did with Katrina this administration should invoke a set aside of the Jones Act which would allow non-American vessels to help collect this oil.  Since Obama is blaming him for everything else, give him credit for doing this and follow suit.  Could it also be that the sluggishness in this is because BP may want to caldron all the oil for itself to help pay the bills it has promised to pay?  The priority should be to stop the leak and clean up the oil!

Third, Congress should not be allowed off the hook in permitting companies such as BP to buy out AMOCO which sold not only their operations but gave that company control of 80+% of USA natural gas reserves.  International conglomerates are being allowed to play by rules that jeopardize national sovereignty and remove strategic resources from a country to be sold on the open market with no accountability to that country of resource’s origin.  It will be intriguing to see how the USA can hold a licensed company of the United Kingdom to its rules and make them pay when they scream enough.

Fourth, unlike others, I am not convinced BP is solely to blame for the oil spill for lurking underreported in the background is a spontaneous substantial leak of oil on the ocean floor which is not being considered in the clean up equation.  With the earthquakes in the islands and floor of the ocean in that area, one must wonder if the underground tectonic plate shifts have caused an extraordinary build up of pressure and any hole or weakness in the ocean floor may serve as a pop-off valve.

Fifth, this disaster provides an opportune time to expand the numbers, not reduce by 4% the US Coast Guard as the Obama Administration previously proposed.  It is evident that the USCG role in disasters is critical to our Homeland Defense and National Security.  Upping their ranks from 40,000 to at least 60,000 would add more calm to our storm tossed seas.

Sixth, now is a good time to look at the profit structure of mega-corporations which use our resources.  Why is not BP, Exxon, Shell and others who drill on our land required to give one-third of their profits from such to the treasury?  It is a better way to handle this than the socialistic wealth redistribution through unfair taxes being proposed.

Seventh, why are company profits not going to shareholders?  Though BP makes billions in profits, my shareholder statements show that we stakeholders didn’t share in those profits.  So who is getting the money and who protects our interests?

Eighth, as one who has long opposed drilling and building nuclear power plants, the spill confirms my concern that tested back-up plans for worst case scenarios must be in place before folks go off half-cocked doing things with little or no preparation when something go wrong.

Ninth, it must be appreciated that no new refineries have been built in this nation in more than thirty years.  Several old AMOCO facilities are operating at less than full capacity in Mandan, ND, Salt Lake City Utah, Whiting Indiana and Yorktown, VA. What dictates bringing the old on line and building new?

And Tenth, let us not forget about the need for research into the regulations in place and those proposed to insure that they do protect the public’s safety and promote sound environmental stewardship not just create obstacles to production.

Just some food for thought, appreciating that if we don’t clean up the oil we may not have sufficient water to wash it down.
DR. ADA M. FISHER WAS PREVIOUSLY A MEDICAL DIRECTOR OF AMOCO OIL COMPANY AND IS A PHYSICIAN, PREVIOUS SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER, LICENSED SECONDARY EDUCATION TEACHER FOR 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@DRADAMFISHER.ORG.