masthead-highres

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Quote of Note: How to Control Health Care Costs

"When President Obama tells you he's 'reforming' health care to 'control costs,' the point to remember is that the only way to control costs in health care is to have less of it."

-Mark Steyn, "Being Taken Care of Weakens Us," Washington Times, June 15, 2009


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:12 AM

Look, Everybody, I Have a Hybrid!

hybridcaryorktown.jpg
Not me; I don't, but when I saw this car in a parking lot, I thought, "Gee, do you suppose car companies believe hybrid buyers want the world to know they drive a hybrid?"

I think I'll get a big sticker for the back window of my vehicle. It will say: GASOLINE.

I'm sure everybody's very interested.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:14 AM

Monday, June 29, 2009

Black Activists Praise Supreme Court

Project 21 has issued a press release on the Supreme Court's affirmative action decision today:
Black Activists Praise Supreme Court's Affirmative Action Decision

Justices' Ruling Throws Sotomayor Nomination into Serious Question


For Release: June 29, 2009
Contact: David Almasi at 202/543-4110 x11 or [email protected]

With the U.S. Supreme Court dealing a stinging blow to race-based employment practices, members of the Project 21 black leadership network are praising the Ricci v. DeStefano decision as a step toward removing the racial trappings of a by-gone era and putting all Americans on equal footing.

"It was clear to this Court that barring people from promotion because of the color of their skin is wrong. The only downside is that four justices still cling to an outmoded and discriminatory line of thought," said Project 21 chairman Mychal Massie. "True equality allows people to rise and fall on their merits. That's what this decision protects. How can one oppose such fairness?"

In a 5-4 decision, the Court reversed the lower court ruling, barring the use of race as the sole factor in promotions. In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "Fear of litigation alone cannot justify the City's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions."

The decision also casts serious doubt on the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. She was a member of the appeals court panel that issued the one-paragraph opinion overturned today. Now, she must explain to senators how she could be so much at odds with her potential future colleagues.

"Justice is supposed to be blind, but the opinion she joined in the Ricci case - now overturned by the Supreme Court - shows Sonia Sotomayor believes justice should be based on ethnicity," added Project 21's Massie. "Her ruling in Ricci is an unambiguous example of her placing her feelings and personal prejudices above what the law dictates or allows."

The Ricci case revolves around a 2003 promotions exam given to firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut. After the tests were scored, only two Hispanics and no blacks scored high enough to qualify for promotion. After black and Hispanic activists pushed to have the test results thrown out, the city's Civil Service Commission effectively did so by deadlocking 2-2 on the decision to certify the exam.

After the results of the exam were set aside by the city, 20 New Haven firefighters - one Hispanic and 19 white - sued based on the claim of reverse discrimination. The city was granted summary judgment at the district court level, and a panel of judges that included current U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor sided with the lower court in a eight-sentence opinion that called the previous opinion allowing the city to throw out the test scores based on race "thorough, thoughtful and well-reasoned."

In a concurring opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote of the question of empathy for those passed over: "But 'sympathy' is not what petitioners have a right to demand. What they have a right to demand is evenhanded enforcement of the law... And that is what, until today's decision, has been denied them."
The release is online here.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:15 PM

Subjects of Congressional Ethics Probe Fight Back

Project 21 just issued a press release criticizing the Congressional Black Caucus's apparent plans to retaliate against the House Office of Congressional Ethics, which concluded that several CBC members should be investigated by the full Ethics Committee for alleged violations of gift rules.

The release says:
Project 21 Critical of Members of Congress Under Ethics Investigation for Retaliating Against House Ethics Office and for Playing 'Race Card'

For Release: June 29, 2009
Contact: David Almasi at 202/543-4110 x11 or [email protected]

An apparent effort by the Congressional Black Caucus to deter ethics investigations of its membership is drawing sharp criticism from members of the black leadership group Project 21.

CBC members reportedly are considering changes to the law authorizing the House Office of Congressional Ethics, or OCE, in retaliation for the OCE referring allegations against several CBC members to the House Ethics Committee.

CBC members reportedly also have complained that the OCE does not have enough minority staffers, adding a racial element to the apparent retaliation.

"What does the racial or ethnic makeup of the Office of Congressional Ethics have to do with the fact that these members of the Congressional Black Caucus may have violated ethics laws? It has absolutely no bearing on the charge, and to claim that is a lack of diversity at the OCE is playing the race card plain and simple," said Project 21 member Joe Hicks, also a commentator for Pajamas Television. "It is laughable that CBC members are charging the OCE with some sort of racial targeting. The OCE was created by Speaker Pelosi, someone who shamelessly bends over backwards to be politically correct."

Of the three investigative counsels hired by the OCE, one is black. The chairman of the formal Ethics Committee investigation sparked by the OCE referral is a black Member of Congress, Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), a CBC member.

"A legitimate complaint has been filed and an investigation has begun, but political pressure is now being applied to cover up the allegations and brush everything under the rug," said Project 21 member Bishop Council Nedd II. "So much for those promises to 'drain the swamp' and root out the 'culture of corruption.' It seems that swamp has turned into a hot tub for them rather quickly."

"President Obama has long proclaimed that it is special interest lobbyists who are the root of what is wrong with our federal government. This latest lapse in congressional sensibilities exposes the fact that it is wayward members of Congress themselves, whether Republican or Democrat, who pose the greatest threat to good government for the citizens of this country," said Project 21 member John Meredith. "The idea of disbanding the one avenue the citizens of this great nation have to track congressional malfeasance is an affront to the pledge of transparency in government and the use of the race card to facilitate the closing of the Office of Congressional Ethics is insulting not only to black people but to people of every color."

The controversy was sparked by an ethics complaint (PDF) filed with the OCE by National Legal and Policy Center President Peter Flaherty.

In November 2008, Flaherty attended the "Caribbean Multi-Cultural Business Conference" on the Caribbean island of St. Maarten. Although the conference officially was sponsored by the Carib News Foundation, according to Flaherty, signs and materials present indicate the event was funded by Citigroup, Pfizer, American Airlines, Verizon, IBM and other large corporations with business before Congress. CBC members Charles Rangel (D-NY), Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Donald Payne (D-NJ), Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and Delegate Donna Christensen (D-Virgin Islands) attended the event.

Members of Congress have been prohibited since 2007 from taking funded trips of over two days if those trips are paid for or coordinated by companies that "employ or retain a registered lobbyist."

Flaherty alerted the OCE. In his letter to the OCE, Flaherty noted: "My characterization of the trip as a 'junket' is based on my observation that the sessions were lightly attended. Most attendees spent significant time at the beach or the pool. Members of Congress attended the sessions when they had a speaking role." Flaherty also said any suggestion that attendees could not see evidence of corporate involvement was "implausible."
The press release can be found online at http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21PR-Congressional_Ethics_062909.html.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:16 AM

Quote of Note: Does Preventative Care Save Money?

"Prevention of a disease, we all assume, should save us money, right? An ounce of prevention...? Alas, If only such aphorisms were true we’d hand out apples each day and our problems would be over.

It is true that if the prevention strategies we are talking about are behavioral things—eat better, lose weight, exercise more, smoke less, wear a seat belt—then they cost very little and they do save money by keeping people healthy.

But if your preventive strategy is medical, if it involves us, if it consists of screening, finding medical conditions early, shaking the bushes for high cholesterols, or abnormal EKGs, markers for prostate cancer such as PSA, then more often than not you don’t save anything and you might generate more medical costs. Prevention is a good thing to do, but why equate it with saving money when it won’t?"

-Abraham Verghese, "The Myth of Prevention," Wall Street Journal, June 20, 2009


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:34 AM

What Killed GM













In this CNBC interview, Peter Flaherty of the National Legal and Policy Center argues that government regulation killed GM.

Peter includes the role of government-backed unions in his analysis:
...[GM's management's] biggest shortcoming... was the failure to take on the unions. No executive in Detroit would dare take on the unions or build a non-union plant in a southern state. Now, there is a reason for that... That’s because of the government, because of the power of the United Auto Workers on our government. If one of them tried, they would have been run out of town. And now we have the ultimate manifestation of it where the UAW has an equity stake in the company and I predict the results are just going to be worse and worse.
Dittos to Peter on that one.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:04 AM

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Quote of Note: CBS Anchor Osgood on Global Warming

"The sun normally undergoes an 11-year cycle of activity—and last year, it was supposed to have heated up—and at its peak would have a tumultuous, boiling atmosphere, spitting out flares and huge chunks of superhot gas. Instead, it hit a 50-year low in solar wind pressure, a 55-year low in radio emissions, and a 100-year low in sunspot activity. Right now, the sun is the dimmest it’s been in nearly a century.

In the mid-seventeenth century, there was a quiet spell on the sun, known as the Maunder Minimum, which lasted 70 years and led to a mini-Ice Age here on Earth. Right now, global warming is a given to so many, it raises the question: Could another minimum activity period on the sun counteract, in any way, the effects of global warming?

Hush, child! You’re not even supposed to suggest that."

-CBS's Charles Osgood, April 21, 2009, as cited by Krystle Russin, "CBS Anchor Osgood Takes Skeptical Stand, Environment & Climate News, July 2009


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:57 AM

There's Money to Be Made

Al Gore reportedly has billions of reasons to be glad the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill was approved by the House in a squeaker Friday.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:26 AM

Saturday, June 27, 2009

American Spectator Covers African-American Energy Poll

Thanks to W. James Antle for his story "Lights Out," in the American Spectator, which mentioned The National Center's poll of the African-American community on energy issues.

The article appeared on Rush Limbaugh's "Stack of Stuff" Thursday.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:46 PM

Because Nothing Says "Slavery"...

Like "State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations."

There's a movement to take the word "plantations" out of Rhode Island's name because slavery once occurred in Rhode Island's agricultural areas.

Yes, I'm serious.

Four reasons why this is idiotic:

1) Slavery once occurred all over Rhode Island, yet they're not thinking of changing the entire name;

2) Slavery was associated with agriculture, but no one suggests Rhode Islanders stop eating in penance (only a meaningless thing -- a name change -- is proposed);

3) Newport (Rhode Island) was a major slave port, yet no one considers the name "Newport" synonymous with slavery, or suggests changing its name; and

4) Slavery was practiced all over New England and didn't start in Rhode Island. (If the Massachusetts Bay Colony had taken a strong stand against it, American history would have unfolded very differently.)

Even discussing this perpetuates the absurd notion that slavery existed only on plantations. Plantations, of course, are largely associated with the American South.

It is understandable that New Englanders would be comfortable perpetuating the myth -- as this does -- that the South is the exclusive location in North America in which slavery was commonplace and legal, but if a geographical region can be blamed for a moral failing, on the question of slavery, New England has much to answer for.

If the people of Rhode Island want to change their name because they probably are all forced to learn the long version in elementary school, never to usefully use the information again, I certainly can understand their thinking. But to do it as a moral stand is idiocy.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:53 AM

Friday, June 26, 2009

Examiner Coverage of Poll

Mark Tapscott, Editorial Page Editor of the Washington Examiner, covered our poll today in his editorial, "Survey Finds Three-Fourths of African-Americans Have Big Worries About Obama-Waxman-Markey."

Many thanks to Mark, whose editorial page is a must-read. If you aren't reading daily now, try it for a week -- heck, try it for a day -- and you will be hooked.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:23 PM

Truth in Labelling

David Ridenour calls the Waxman-Markey bill the "Waxman-Markey Economic Climate Change" bill, because the only climate Waxman-Markey has a prayer of changing is our economic one.

And prospects for that, if it passes, are very good indeed.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:03 PM

Understatement of the Day

The New York Times, referring to the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill: "The bill has shortcomings."

Ya think?

P.S. Apologies. I forgot to add that, except for the sentence quoted above, the NY Times editorial is also one of the most dishonest bits of writing you'll ever come across. To name just one example, it ends on an implied claim that Waxman-Markey will prevent "drought, famine, [and] coastal devastation."

In fact, Waxman-Markey, if adopted, will have an impact on the environment that is too scant to measure even if human beings are causing global warming through CO2 emissions.

As the headline of far, far wiser Orange County Register editorial put it, "Climate change bill all pain, no gain."

Even environmentalists should oppose hurting people for no reason -- and some of them, including Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, do oppose Waxman-Markey.

The rest have no excuse.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:44 AM

I Don't Recommend...

...looking for a job in Scotland anytime soon.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels:

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:41 AM

National Review Online Coverage of Our Poll

National Review Online has covered our poll on African-Americans and climate policy -- twice.

On The Corner, Kathryn Jean Lopez contributed "Blacks vs. Cap and Trade," and at Planet Gore, Edward John Craig wrote "More Opposition to the Obama Energy Tax."

Much appreciated!


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:21 AM

House Leadership Takes Suicidal Stand Against Its African-American Base - Townhall.com

David Ridenour has a new column published on TownHall.com examining the Democratic Congressional leadership's seemingly suicidal lack of concern for the wishes of its most loyal core constituency, African-Americans.

It begins:
Overly influenced by certain big-name green groups, misled by their own ideology and perhaps also a bit dazzled by the unlikely stardom of failed-politician-turned-climate-hero Al Gore, Democrats on Capitol Hill seem bent on self-destruction when it comes to climate change...
Go here to read the rest.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:52 AM

Politico Coverage of Our Poll

Cesar Conda has covered our energy and climate poll of African-Americans in his blog on Politico.

Thanks to Cesar for the coverage!


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:14 AM

Poll Shows: Black Americans Prefer Delaying Action on Climate Change; Want Economy Fixed First

76% of African-Americans want Congress to make economic recovery, not climate change, its top priority, says a poll just released by the National Center for Public Policy Research.

The U.S. House of Representatives is planning a vote today on the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade climate bill.

The legislation, if adopted, is expected to reduce aggregate GDP by $7.4 trillion in an effort to reduce global warming, based on a Heritage Foundation analysis.

The survey of 800 African-Americans, 80% of which were self-identified Democrats and 4% self-identified Republicans, found significant concern that government action on climate change would have a harmful and disproportionately negative impact on the African-American community.

Among the key findings:
* 38% believe job losses from climate change legislation would be felt most strongly in the black community. 7% believe job losses would fall most on Hispanics and 2% on whites;

* 56% believe Washington policymakers have failed to adequately consider economic and quality of life concerns of the black community when addressing climate issues;

* 52% of respondents don't want to pay more for gasoline or electricity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 73% are unwilling to pay more than 50 cents more for a gallon of gas; 76% are unwilling to pay more than $50 more per year for electricity;

* Black Americans are virtually deadlocked on plans to reduce emissions if it would increase prices and unemployment. 44% opposed reductions under these circumstances, 45% supported them.

* 76% want Congress to make economic recovery the top priority.
The survey was conducted by Wilson Research Strategies and has a margin of error of +/- 3.4%. The questions we asked, plus summary materials, can be viewed at: http://www.nationalcenter.org/BlackOpinion.html.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:29 AM

Thursday, June 25, 2009

ABC Stands for "All Barack Channel"?

Writing on the Fox News Channel's Fox Forum website, our Tom Borelli examines the political connections of ABC and NBC, saying the Obama Administration seems to have a deliberate political strategy of co-opting media corporations as a deliberate strategy.

But that's no reason, Tom also says, for corporations such as Disney, which owns ABC, and GE, which owns NBC, CNB and MSNBC, to play along, or for the public to stand for it.

Tom's entire piece can be read here.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:10 PM

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Puzzled

I don't know why everyone's so amazed by Gov. Mark Sanford's announcement. He was just getting himself a little experience in foreign affairs.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:07 PM

Tom Borelli to Tackle Cap and Trade on Fox Thursday

StrategyRoomBorelli112508kTom Borelli of the National Center's Free Enterprise Project is scheduled to appear on the Fox News Channel's online "Strategy Room" program on Thursday, June 25 between 9:00 AM and 10:00 AM eastern.

Tom is planning to talk about the Waxman-Markey "cap-and-trade" legislation that could come up for a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives as early as this Friday. This bill would regulate the emissions of American businesses, inevitably raising consumer prices for what is predicted as a negligible effect on climate change.

A recent poll commissioned by the National Center's Public Opinion and Policy Center found that black Americans in particular are opposed to such new regulation while the economy is under strain. Of 800 black Americans polled, 76% want economic recovery to be the top priority of lawmakers and 52% do not favor paying even a single penny in higher gas and electricity prices to promote liberal climate change policy.

A press release summarizing the results of the POP Center poll can be found here.

To access the live Internet broadcast on Thursday, click here and then click the "STREAM THIS NOW" headline in the center or the page under the photo.

This post was written by David Almasi, executive director of the National Center for Public Policy Research. Write the author at [email protected]. As we occasionally reprint letters on the blog, please note if you prefer that your correspondence be kept private, or only published anonymously.

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by David W. Almasi at 7:23 PM

Iran Quick Hits

Husband David says Obama's message to the Iranian government boils down to: What you're doing is unacceptable and it's none of our business.

Michael Barone of the Washington Examiner sees in the President's Iran stance a bit of an adolescent still growing up: "There is a tendency for newly installed presidents, like adolescents suddenly liberated from adult supervision, to do the exact opposite of what their predecessors did. Presidents of both parties indulge in this behavior, though Democrats who campaign as candidates of hope and change are more likely to do so."

I assume that last sentence is a bit tongue-in-cheek.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:59 AM

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Project 21 Critical of Voting Rights Decision; Slavery Apology

Project 21 isn't particularly thrilled by either the U.S. Supreme Court or the U.S. Senate just now.

In this press release, Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie criticizes the Court for side-stepping the issue of the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act despite noting "serious Constitutional concerns" with the law in the decision in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder.

Project 21 had joined in an amicus brief on the Voting Rights Act case with the Pacific Legal Foundation and Center for Equal Opportunity.

When it comes to the Senate, Project 21 members Jerry Brooks, Jimmie L. Hollis and Bob Parks are concerned about the Senate's recent apology for slavery and segregation, fearing the apology will be used to advance the call for financial reparations for slavery.

As Jerry Brooks put it:
I'll accept the Senate's apology, but let's move on already. This apology is something that might have been more appropriate long ago, and now it's likely going to be misused by those with a political axe to grind. In particular and despite its intention to the contrary, it is already being used to promote reparations. Not only is this an idea without merit, but an extremely foolish one to be clinging to while our nation is trying to recover from its current economic distress.



E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:09 AM

"The American Family Needs Large Vehicles Too"

In a story he tells today in U.S. News and World Report, Peter Roff and his family go out for custard, finding themselves at the same frozen custard store as President Obama and his eleven SUVs and vans (not counting the ambulance).

Peter doesn't begrudge the President his big-vehicle motorcade. He figures the President and the Secret Service need big vehicles.

What he does is wonder is why our mileage-standard-tightening President won't return the favor, because, as Peter put it, "the American family needs large vehicles, too."


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:00 AM

Monday, June 22, 2009

White House Staff Misses George Bush

David Broder is reporting that the White House staff misses George Bush.

No, it's not about which President's family remembers to thank the permanent staff for the cooking and cleaning and door-opening.

It's Obama's political staff that misses Bush.

Hat tip: Jennifer Rubin at Contentions.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:36 AM

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Obama's Team Worried on Health Care Prospects

This Associated Press report is a decent overview of where the health care debate is on the Hill right now, which is to say, no where. At this moment, anyway.

That said, I very much caution those of us who fear an advance of government-run health care with its attendant long lines and rationing not to relax one bit. We've seen with the stimulus package, among other things, that this President and Congress are willing to leap first and look after. That's a recipe for passing something, even if it's horrible, just so they can say they did so.

The left has wanted government-run health care for years and the left-wing of the Democratic Party will not be especially forgiving if this President and Congress don't deliver it. Furthermore, President Obama is aware that a failure to deliver something major for the left on health care will be attributed especially to him (and from what we've seen so far, rightly so, as he's been providing scant leadership to his side). The longer this drags on, the less the White House will care about passing a bill that actually works for America, and more about getting something, anything, approved.

That could be trouble for all of us.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 3:32 PM

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Chuck Schumer's Hypocrisies

Climate Depot unveils two shocking examples of hypocrisy by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) when it reports that global warming zealot Schumer is seeking federal aid for New York farmers because below-average temperatures are affecting crop yields.

That's my opinion, anyway.

Hypocrisy #1: Schumer has been co-sponsoring climate legislation that would have immense negative economic effects on the American public, supposedly in the interest of preventing global warming. So now he wants to hit up the taxpayers because it's too cold?

Hypocrisy #2: To hear him tell it, Schumer is extremely worried about farmers in New York who lost crops due to below-average temperatures. Federal funds are needed, he says, to mitigate the damage of nature: "We must provide immediate assistance after the unusually low temperatures that destroyed... crops and profits for the season."

But does Schumer do anything when federal laws -- federal laws he supports, such as the Endangered Species Act -- restrict vital water to farmers in the San Joaquin Valley, causing what one California Congressman, Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D), called a "Dust Bowl migration," as thousands of families are moving away from his district, thanks to unemployment nearing 50 percent in some communities.

Schumer calls upon the federal government to act immediately when nature hurts the farmers of his state, but when policies he ardently supportS hurt the farmers of California, he just doesn't care.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:02 AM

Friday, June 19, 2009

Obama Shouldn't Be Taken Literally, Says White House

Courtesy of the White House itself, we now know why President Obama was willing to break a health care promise before he even made it.

According to the White House, the Associated Press reports, Obama didn't really do that, because Obama's promises "shouldn't be taken literally."

"Promises shouldn't be taken literally" could be the Obama White House's version of the Clinton White House's "depends on what the definition of is is."

Just speak straight, people! (But thanks for warning us that we can't trust you.)

Hat tip: Ramesh Ponnuru at the Corner.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:46 PM

Chaos on Capitol Hill

Roll Call reports that negotiations over climate legislation among Democrats on Capitol Hill blew up last night.

This mimics the disorder among members of the Congressional majority on health care. CNN reported today that that the Democrats' plans to advance government's role in health care may be "on the rocks"; that's our sense of things as well.

Believers in a free market should not become overconfident, however; the left still holds most of the cards, and it has shown in the past that it is willing to pass nearly anything, as long as it is left-wing and/or shovels tax money to groups and individuals allied with the left. The Congressional majority will gladly pass bad, even horrendous, bills on climate and health care (indeed, from what I can see, they are only considering horrendous bills), so the odds against our team remain high.

That said, I'm amazed at the incompetence and lack of discipline going on in leftist ranks on the Hill. Congressional liberals were mostly out of power from 1995-2007 (House liberals were the entire time). They wanted to curb our use of energy and increase government's role in health care decisionmaking during that entire period, so why did they not get together and make plans? Work out drafts and get those drafts scored?

The Republican majority in Congress had its problems, but it sure hit the ground running in 1995.

This makes no sense to me.

P.S. One possibility just occurred to me. Possibly the environmental groups, with their hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, did not expend enough effort to get folks together on their version of climate heaven because they figure, if a climate bill passes, they wouldn't be able to do fundraising on global warming anymore. That's just a guess on my part, though. Could be they've just been incompetent.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:46 PM

Project 21's Borelli to Discuss MSM's ObamaCare Bias Monday on Fox

DBStrategyRoom021309.jpgProject 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli is scheduled to appear on the Fox News Channel's online "Strategy Room" program on Monday, June 22 between 9:00 AM and 10:00 AM eastern.

Deneen expects to discuss the President's seemingly unfettered access to a sympathetic mainstream media as President Obama promotes legislation to increase the role of government in individual health care decisions. In particular, Deneen plans to speak about ABC's hour-long "Prescription for America" program that will air this coming Wednesday.

To access the live Internet broadcast, click here and then click the "STREAM THIS NOW" headline in the center or the page under the photo.

This post was written by David Almasi, executive director of the National Center for Public Policy Research. Write the author at [email protected]. As we occasionally reprint letters on the blog, please note if you prefer that your correspondence be kept private, or only published anonymously.

Labels: , , , , ,

Posted by David W. Almasi at 5:25 PM

Black Conservatives Warn of Threat to Continued Freedom

On the occasion of the annual holiday "Juneteenth," which celebrates the end of slavery in the U.S., black conservatives associated with Project 21 are warning the continued growth of government poses a significant threat to continued freedom.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:57 AM

Thursday, June 18, 2009

CWRA's Chances of Passage

Senator James Inhofe believes it is doubtful the the Clean Water Restoration Act will pass the full Senate.

I am a bit less sanguine, but readily acknowledge his superior familiarity with the Senate.

Here's hoping he's right.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:40 PM

Daschle: Federal Health Care Plan a No-Go for Now

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's decision to give up for now on a federal public health care plan has to be a blow to the Administration and the left.

Daschle, while retired from the Senate, remains an influential and respected voice in the Democratic party. This can't be happy news for the left.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:00 PM

CWRA Approved by Senate Committee, As Expected

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved the Clean Water Restoration Act by a party-line vote this morning.

This was expected.

Prospects for CWRA on the Senate floor are less predictable. It could go either way, although the left appears to have an advantage given 1) its control of Congress, and 2) the limited public attention (even from conservative media) the onerous provisions of this massive bill are receiving.

On a more positive note, excluding the bigger-the-government-the-better crowd, the more Americans look at this bill, the less they like it. And why would they like it? Who wants to get a federal permit, or the very least have to investigate whether they need a federal permit, just to landscape their own back yards?

It is not as though the original Clean Water Act, which is a powerful law by anyone's definition, has been repealed or expired. We don't need CWRA to have clean water.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:58 PM

Inhofe on CWRA

Senator James Inhofe's opening statement on CWRA from the hearing is a useful addition to the debate.

I hadn't previously realized the National Association of Realtors and had come out against the bill (perhaps I should stop reviewing the environmental groups' propaganda sheets, which often claim only right-wing dirty water lovers oppose CWRA).

An excerpt from Senator Inhofe's statement:
I see this bill as a significant part of a hostile agenda aimed squarely at rural America. Whether it’s new energy taxes from cap-and-trade legislation or more unfunded environmental mandates, it’s clear that this bill is yet one more raw deal for rural America.

Allowing EPA and the Corps to exercise unlimited regulatory authority over all inter- and intrastate water, or virtually anything that is wet, goes too far and is certainly beyond anything intended by the Clean Water Act. But, that is what S. 787 does. It vastly expands Federal control of private property, despite assurances contained in S. 787. In fact, the very premise of the bill is to override a State’s fundamental right to oversee waters within its borders and to usurp the power of land owners to manage their property as they see fit. The Constitution never envisioned federal jurisdiction being boundless; it carves out room for state and local governments and private property owners to manage their resources.

Two of my Republican colleagues have filed amendments to S. 787, which highlight some very legitimate concerns with the bill. I have chosen not to try and amend the bill because, frankly, I don’t think this bill is fixable. Allow me to just briefly list some of the groups that have expressed concerns with this bill that are not covered by any the amendments filed today: The Associated Builders and Contractors, the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association, the American Forest and Paper Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of REALTORS, the American Highway Users Alliance, the American Association of Airport Executives, and the list goes on for about 14 pages...
Senator Inhofe's statement on CWRA should be read in its entirety.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:56 PM

Obama Versus Inspectors General

It isn't just Fox News Obama doesn't like. It's scrutiny of any kind.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:24 PM

Pop Quiz on the Clean Water Restoration Act

1) Which two states hate the Clean Water Restoration Act so much, their legislatures actually passed resolutions urging the Congress not to enact it?

A. Texas and Oklahoma
B. Georgia and Alabama
C. Washington and Oregon
D. Idaho and Montana
C. Rhode Island and Massachusetts


2) Which of the following groups oppose the Clean Water Restoration Act?

A. National Association of Counties
B. National Cattlemen's Association
C. American Farm Bureau
D. National Association of Home Builders
E. All of the above


3) Which is more accurate:

A. The original Clean Water Act, which remains in effect, was intended to cover all waters in the United States, but the U.S. Supreme Court limited its scope. The Clean Water Restoration Act would simply restore the original scope of the Clean Water Act.

B. The original Clean Water Act, which remains in effect, limited federal authority to "navigable" waters of the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld this definition. The Clean Water Restoration Act would expand federal authority beyond navigable waters to virtually every drop of water in the United States, including water on private property.



Answer to 1: D - Idaho (House and Senate) and Montana (Senate).
Answer to 2: E
Answer to 3: B


If you didn't get 3-out-of-3, visit our Clean Water Restoration Act Information page.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:18 AM

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

If ABC Does Not Accept Advocacy Advertising....

...perhaps ABC should stop advocacy reporting.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:16 PM

Quote of Note: Clean Water Restoration Act Means Troubled Waters

"For years, the 1972 Clean Water Act has been misused in the name of protecting America's waters and wetlands. The statute’s original limitation that its key provisions only apply to navigable waters was largely ignored. Instead, the law was broadly applied to a wide variety of circumstances, including remote and inconsequential drainage ditches or temporary puddles and even to completely dry land.

The statute’s complex and costly provisions interfered with the economic use of the lands it encompassed, including farming and ranching operations, construction of housing and other buildings, and domestic oil and gas production.

Fortunately, two Supreme Court decisions, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States in 2001, and Rapanos v. United States in 2006 partially reined in these excesses.

Now, the CWRA seeks to overturn these Supreme Court decisions and make the statute more expansive than ever. In fact, it would turn the Clean Water Act into what some analysts believe to be the most dangerous federal intrusion on private property rights in existence..."

-Ben Lieberman, "The Clean Water Restoration Act Means Troubled Waters For Property Owners," Heritage Foundation The Foundry blog, June 17, 2009


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:32 PM

"The Biggest Bureaucratic Power Grab in a Generation"


If you haven't visited the National Center for Public Policy Research's new Clean Water Restoration Act Information page (or even if you have), you can get a good 2 1/2 minute summary of CWRA from Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) from the video above.

Senator Inhofe starts the video with "Rural America, watch out!" and goes on to call CWRA "the biggest bureaucratic power grab in a generation."

If you have a blog or web page yourself, please consider posting this video. Although few people have heard of this bill, Senator Inhofe is not exaggerating about its scope.

It's important that people become educated about CWRA -- the issue is that big.

P.S. Our Clean Water Restoration Act Information page provides links to addition information about CWRA from a variety of sources.

The legislation is scheduled for a vote in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee June 18.

Labels: , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:09 AM

Incessant Twittering Over the Heads of the Media

It's not often one can say a wonky op-ed on health care reform is funny as well as wise, but this one by Holman Jenkins in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal certainly is.

(I stole the title of this piece from it, by the way.)


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:07 AM

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Obama Breaks Health Care Pledge... Before He Makes It

Everyone expects politicians to break their promises, but Barack Obama may have set a record yesterday by breaking one before he made it.

In his speech before the American Medical Association's annual meeting in Chicago Monday, President Obama pledged:
...no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period.

If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.
But Obama had previously unveiled a plan that would do just that: take health care plans away from millions of Americans who want to keep them.

In his 2010 budget, Obama calls for cutting federal outlays for Medicare Advantage plans by more than $175 billion over ten years. If he prevails, millions of seniors would face higher premiums, higher co-payments and reduced benefits.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the change would result in a decline in Medicare Advantage enrollment of seven million senior citizens.

A promise to the American people?

I guess it depends on what your definition of American people is.

This post was written by National Center for Public Policy Research Vice President David Ridenour. Write him at [email protected]. Please state if a letter is not for publication or if you prefer that it be published anonymously.

Labels: , , ,

Posted by David A. Ridenour at 1:21 PM

Regarding Cap and Trade, Is Caterpillar CEO in Over His Head?

Timothy Carney of the Washington Examiner has taken a look at our Tom Borelli's question to Caterpillar CEO Jim Owens last week.

Carney believes Owens may be in over this head.

Read it for yourself here.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:33 PM

Obama Disses Kennedy

The White House is running away from Senator Ted Kennedy's health care reform bill, now that the bill is receiving adverse publicity.

I don't believe any of the liberal bills calling for an increase in the government's role in our health care system are a good idea for America, but I can't call myself impressed by the way the White House is dissing Kennedy here. Kennedy at least is man enough to put a bill out there.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:33 AM

Quote of Note: How Big Would a U.S. Health Bureaucracy Be?

"The British National Health Service is the biggest employer not just in the United Kingdom, but in the whole of Europe. Care to estimate the size and budget of a U.S. health bureaucracy?"

-Mark Steyn, "Being Taken Care of Weakens Us," Washington Times, June 15, 2009


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:08 AM

Is the Liberal Health Care Plan a Trojan Horse for Socialized Medicine?


Get the answer from the liberals who know. Watch this 4-minute video from Glenn Beck's June 15, 2009 television program.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:07 AM

Monday, June 15, 2009

CBO: Kennedy's Health Care Bill Would Increase Deficit by $1.0 Trillion from 2010-2019

The Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation staff released this evening (PDF) a "preliminary analysis" of Title I of the draft of the Affordable Health Choices Act, which was created by Democrats on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

The CBO/Joint Committee conclude:
...According to our preliminary assessment, enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period. When fully implemented, about 39 million individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges. At the same time, the number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, so the net decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million or 17 million.

These new figures do not represent a formal or complete cost estimate for the draft legislation, for several reasons. The estimates provided do not address the entire bill—only the major provisions related to health insurance coverage. Some details have not been estimated yet, and the draft legislation has not been fully reviewed. Also, because expanded eligibility for the Medicaid program may be added at a later date, those figures are not likely to represent the impact that more comprehensive proposals—which might include a significant expansion of Medicaid or other options for subsidizing coverage for those with income below 150 percent of the federal poverty level—would have both on the federal budget and on the extent of insurance coverage...
The price tag is obviously the big news in this item, but the CBO/Joint Committee estimate that 15 million people would lose their employer-provided health insurance deserves some note.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:55 PM

No Boo-Hoo-Hoo for California's Money Woes, If It Can Still Afford Public Parties

California's free-spending ways have led it to seek the money of federal taxpayers, but don't think that means Los Angeles is trying to stop spending money on frivolities.

The city intends to spend a million dollars on a victory parade for the Los Angeles Lakers, despite the city's need to cut its budget by hundreds of millions of dollars and the fact that unofficial celebrations turned criminal overnight, with crowds vandalizing buses and police cars and throwing rocks and bottles at police officers, resulting in five officers sustaining injuries.

The Lakers are a for-profit enterprise, and basketball is a game (it would be different if we were talking about a parade for returning war veterans). At a time when California is expecting federal taxpayers to bail it out of its own financial mess, the Lakers ought to be paying for its entire parade by itself.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels:

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:49 AM

Backyard Puddles to be Regulated by Feds?

The American Farm Bureau is reporting, correctly, that if the Clean Water Restoration Act (Senator Russ Feingold's S.787) becomes law, the federal government will claim the authority to regulate "all water" in the United States.

"S. 787 would remove any bounds from the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction, so that the regulatory reach of the act would extend to all water -- anywhere from farm ponds, to storm water retention basins, to roadside ditches, to desert washes, to streets and gutters, even to a puddle of rainwater," says a letter signed by the group.

Nearly two years ago, the groups's president, Bob Stallman, explained in more detail:
Since its enactment in 1972, the Clean Water Act has regulated “navigable waters,” or waters of the U.S. The proposed legislation would delete the term “navigable” and replace it with “all intrastate waters” and add confusing language allowing the federal government to regulate “activities affecting these waters.” Although technical and hard to get your head around, these terms, if interchanged, would pose serious consequences for most landowners.

The legislation would grant -- for the first time ever -- the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers jurisdiction over all wet areas within a state, including groundwater, ditches, pipes, streets, municipal storm drains and gutters. It would grant these same agencies -- for the first time ever -- authority over all activities affecting those waters, regardless of whether the activity is occurring in water or adds a pollutant. With unfunded mandates, this slippery slope takes away power from state and local jurisdictions, shifting the control to the federal government for development and use of local land and water resources.

What does this mean for the typical residential landowner? Likely, a lot of hassle, expense and time spent in court. The legislation clearly states "all waters." Those of you with farm, stock and even goldfish ponds – beware.
The legislation is scheduled to be voted upon in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on June 18.

The National Center for Public Policy Research has a Clean Water Restoration Act Information webpage here.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:39 AM

Feds Fire Inconvenient Inspector General

This looks fishy.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:34 AM

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Raising Taxes By the Mile

Project 21's Ak'Bar Shabazz has an op-ed opposing a new federal tax on driving in Sunday's Washington Examiner.

It begins:
During the 2008 presidential campaign, President Obama endeared himself to many voters with a promise that 95 percent of Americans would get a tax cut and those making under $250,000 "would not see a single dime of tax increase - not on anything."

Since Obama won and he's already spent so much, it was only a matter of time before his pledge went by the wayside. First came new taxes on tobacco to pay for middle-class kids' health care.

Now Rep. James Oberstar, D-MN, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, wants a vehicle mileage tax (VMT) imposed on every vehicle. And he wants it right away.

When a colleague suggested state-level pilot programs to test the feasibility of the tax, Oberstar replied: "It's going to be done, it's something we have to do. Why not just move it along?" Oberstar hopes for a vote as early as June.

Obama's transportation secretary, former Illinois Republican Rep. Ray LaHood, promoted a VMT back in February. Although the White House backed off LaHood's trial balloon then, Congress may now try to ram it down Americans' throats...
Read the rest here.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:18 PM

George Will's Dirty Little Secrets of Universal Health Care

Writing on Newsbusters, Noel Sheppard does us the service of transcribing George Will's dirty little secrets of universal health care from today's broadcast of ABC's "This Week."

Worth reading (or viewing, as the post contains a link to the video) if you did not see the show.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:24 PM

Universal Health Care Immoral?

Smart Girl Nation examines the question: Is universal health care a moral issue?

Kimberly Moore says "yes," and adds, "the United States already has a universal health care plan. It is Medicaid and Medicare."


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:56 AM

Clean Water Restoration Act Information Webpage Created

The National Center for Public Policy Research has created a webpage with links to resources about the Clean Water Restoration Act.

The page has links to resources about CWRA published not only by the National Center, but by a variety of other organizations as well. If you are a columnist, blogger, speaker or talk show host planning to address the issue, you will find plenty of useful information on the page.

As National Center Senior Fellow R.J. Smith noted below, the legislation is scheduled for a markup and vote in the U.S. Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee on June 18.

You can visit the page here.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:05 AM

Saturday, June 13, 2009

Clean Water Restoration Act Scheduled for Senate Committee Vote June 18

An important message from National Center for Public Policy Research Senior Fellow R.J. Smith on the Clean Water Restoration Act, which is less about protecting our nation's waters and more about expanding the federal government's power to regulate private property.

From R.J. Smith:
I received an email at 11:05 p.m. last night from Senate Environment and Public Works staff that Senator Barbara Boxer and company are going to bring the Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA) up for full committee mark-up and vote in their Thursday 18 June business session scheduled for 9:30 a.m. in the EPW Hearing Room, 406 Dirksen.

This is Senator Russ Feingold's S.787, which was introduced on April 2.

With the Democrats having nationalized the financial, banking and automobile industries -- bringing a strong layer of socialism to the key portions of the US economy -- they are now moving to nationalize the American land and water.

Under the Clean Water Act, the Federal government only had the authority to regulate "navigable waters" and control the discharge of pollutants and dredge and fill activities within those navigable waters.

The so-called Clean Water RESTORATION Act restores nothing. That is a hoax. Instead, it removes the restrictive and limiting terms "navigable" waters and unconstitutionally extends the Federal regulatory authority over ALL waters of the United States. This includes the driest desert areas that may only hold water for a few weeks a year during summer monsoon rains. And it includes completely isolated prairie potholes (small ponds and marshes) with no connection whatsoever to any other waters.

Furthermore, the bill will now prohibit ALL activities affecting all waters of the United States. This means that anything a landowner, a business, a county roads department, a waterfowl conservation program undertakes that could conceivably affect anything that is wet -- will be subject to the discretionary jurisdiction of Army Corps or EPA bureaucrats. They will then be able to make the lives of family farmers, ranchers, tree farmers, home builders -- almost anyone and everyone -- literally impossible. They will have the total power to force every farmer or rancher or ordinary business owner to run a gauntlet of permits, red tape, delays -- that will delay projects long enough and cost so much as to essentially shut down or bankrupt even the most necessary and innocuous projects.

There are copious examples of wetlands horror stories over the last 20 years in which people have been imprisoned and fined staggering amounts for simply building their own home, cleaning up dumps, or creating habitat for waterfowl. And that occurred under the CWA restrictions of "navigable waters" and prohibitions only on discharging pollutants and dredge and fill activities.

Once those constraints are removed by the CWRA, life will quickly become a bureaucratic nightmare with no exit -- particularly so throughout all of rural America. This bill would be much more honestly named "The Rural Cleansing Act of 2009."

This will be a tough battle given that the E&PW Committee make up is 12 Ds and 7 Rs (which includes Senators George Voinovich and Lamar Alexander).

It is important that people who are concerned about this enlist the help of the agricultural community, especially county and state farm bureaus. They should notify not only the members of the Senate E&PW but also the Senate Agriculture Committee.

It is also vital to contact Rep. Collin Peterson Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and request that he ask for oversight hearings on the impact of the CWRA on America's farmers and the nation's food production.

They should also request that the farmers and ranchers they know and their county and state farm bureaus and cattlemen's associations contact the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, asking them to strongly oppose the CWRA.
Addendum (6/14/09): For more information on the Clean Water restoration act, please visit our new CWRA information webpage at http://www.nationalcenter.org/CWRA.html.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:03 PM

Outrage of the Day: Pork in the Health Care Bill

A liberal crusade for decades has been the transfer of the U.S. health care system to government hands.

So when the liberals are about to make their most serious run at their cherished prize in 16 years, you'd think they'd leave the pork out of their bill, wouldn't you? Because pork in the bill is a turnoff for many voters, regardless of their position on government-run health care.

I thought so. I was wrong.

According to Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who is Ranking Member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, the bill released by the Democrats of said committee last week has plenty of work.

According to Enzi, the bill includes:
  • A "Community Makeover Program" to spend billions to "beautify" streets, up to $10 per person in selected communities;

  • A federal government program to build new sidewalks and bike paths, and put up street lights;

  • Financing of new grocery stores and farmers’ markets;

  • Mandate that a new Washington health police bureaucracy dictate what local restaurants can offer their customers; and,

  • Subsidizing community projects such as jungle gyms in parks.
The big-spenders are so addicted to pork, they can't keep it out of anything.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:43 PM

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Game, Set and Match to the Heritage Foundation

The National Resources Defense Council has attempted to undermine the credibility of the Heritage Foundation's analysis on the cost of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade global warming bill.

The NRDC would have done itself a favor to stay home from work that day. Heritage's response to the critique so thoroughly nails the NRDC that all the NRDC has done is give the Heritage study more publicity.

For instance, in the second paragraph of its critique, the NRDC complains that the Heritage Foundation analysis of the cost of the Waxman-markey cap-and-trade bill fails to take into account the "cost of inaction," that is, the cost of the bad stuff that would happen if Waxman-Markey is not adopted.

HEL-LO! Anybody home, NRDC? Waxman-Markey, even in a best-case scenario, would have negligible, if any, impact on the climate. And the Heritage Foundation DID mention this, to whit, in the original study:
The impact of Waxman-Markey on the next generation of families is thousands of dollars per year in higher energy costs, over $100,000 of additional federal debt (above and beyond the unconscionable increases already scheduled), a weaker economy, and more unemployment. And all for a change in world temperature that might not be noticeable [emphasis added].
You don't need to take Heritage's word for it, or mine. Even prominent environmental organizations that agree with the NRDC about the global warming theory say Waxman-Markey would not (to their way of thinking) sufficiently affect the climate.

Optimists are saying Waxman-Markey might (believe me, nobody knows) lower world temperatures by half a degree celsius over 40 years or so.

If spending all that money isn't going to solve the alleged problem, then what's the point of spending the money?

By way of congratulations to Heritage, let's recap Heritage's conclusions...

If Waxman-Markey is adopted, by 2035:
  • The typical family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by over $1,500 per year.

  • Pain at the electric meter causes consumers to reduce electricity consumption by 36 percent. Even with this cutback, the electric bill for a family of four will be $754 more that year and $12,933 more in total from 2012 to 2035.

  • The higher gasoline prices will have forced households to cut consumption by 15 percent, but a family of four will still pay $596 more that year and $8,000 more between 2012 and 2035.

  • In total, for the years 2012-2035, a family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by over $24,000. These inflation-adjusted numbers do not include the indirect energy costs consumers will pay as producers are forced to raise the price of their products to reflect the higher costs of production. Nor does the $24,000 include the higher expenditure for such things as more energy-efficient cars and appliances or the disutility of driving smaller, less safe vehicles or the discomfort of using less heating and cooling.

  • As the economy adjusts to shrinking GDP and rising energy prices, employment takes a big hit. On average, employment is lower by 844,000 jobs. In some years cap and trade reduces employment by more than 1.9 million jobs.

  • The negative economic impacts accumulate, and the national debt is no exception. Waxman-Markey drives up the national debt 29 percent by 2035. This is 29 percent above what it would be without the legislation and represents an additional $33,400 per person, or more than $133,000 for a family of four. To reiterate, these burdens come after adjusting for inflation and are in addition to the $450,000 per family of federal debt that will accrue over this period even without cap and trade.
No wonder the NRDC was so desperate to try to undermine Heritage's credibility.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:20 AM

In London...

...it's the 1970s once again.: ""

It's a shame so many innocent commuters and businesses are going to be hurt by the London Underground (subway) strike.

On a more positive note, perhaps the strike will help bring the world another Margaret Thatcher.

Hat tip: Drudge Report.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:04 AM

Tuesday, June 09, 2009

Barack Obama's Just Making Stuff Up

Bill McGurn of the Wall Street Journal writes: "Something's wrong when the president invokes a formula that makes it impossible for him to be wrong and it goes largely unchallenged."

Not quite. Two things are wrong. The White House shouldn't be making stuff up, and the media should be challenging the President over it.

Heck, according to the article, even the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, is exposing the White House on this. If liberal Democrats can do it, why can't the media?

I'm sure some reporters are too dumb to realize they're being lied to flat-out, but surely not all of them are idiots.

What's the point of us paying the price of a newspaper if the President can lie and the media doesn't notice?

Go to Bill McGurn's article for the full story.

P.S. If you don't have a Wall Street Journal subscription and you're wondering what President Obama made up, it's a fake figure for the number of jobs his so-called "stimulus" spending bill has "saved." As the article explains, there's no measurement for anything like that. The White House had to have made it up.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:16 AM

Monday, June 08, 2009

We Need the Energy; We Need the Jobs; We Need the Revenue

In an op-ed appearing in papers nationwide this week, David Ridenour says Congress and the Obama White House are "shunning [an] economic stimulus that would cost taxpayers zilch, yet could create up to 160,000 jobs and up to $1.7-trillion in new government revenue."

What's more, he says, "A significant part of this would flow to cash-strapped states, giving them funding needed to help unemployed workers and their families, fund schools, and avoid cuts in critical state services."

The stimulus: Drilling for oil.

Let's face it: We need the stuff.

Speaking of which, David's piece also examines the likelihood that solar and wind power can meet America's energy needs.

Read the article online on the Miami Herald website, the Cleveland Plain Dealer website, or the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer website, among others.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:34 AM

Sunday, June 07, 2009

"I Think It Might Be A Little Intimidating That You Have A Stick In Your Hand"

Michelle Malkin's latest column looks at Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to dismiss default judgments the Department of Justice had won against defendants charged with violating the Voting Rights Act in Philadelphia.

Project 21's Mychal Massie has called for a special counsel to investigate the matter, as dismissals of default judgments are very rare, and the Obama Administration has an undeniable conflict of interest in this case.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:14 PM

Saturday, June 06, 2009

Go For It, Indiana

Here's hoping the U.S. Supreme Court hears this case.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:13 PM

Barack Obama's D-Day Speech

I went to whitehouse.gov to catch a transcript of President Obama's D-Day remarks, but it wasn't there (replaced by some incredibly vague but nonetheless supercilious dribble about the alleged need to replace the world's best health health care system with something he can't or won't describe).

So I'm left wondering: In his speech today, did Barack Obama apologize for D-Day?

Based on his track record so far, I kinda figure he must have.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels:

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:08 PM

Move Over Chris Matthews...

...the "thrilling running up your leg" has just been outdone, and by a guest on Hardball, no less.

Newsweek Editor Evan Thomas announces that Barack Obama is "sort of God" (link includes video clip).

In the same comment, Thomas calls Reagan "parochial," apparently because he was a patriot.

Parochial enough to defeat the Soviet Empire. Obama hasn't gone toe-to-toe with anything bigger than a corporate board.

Have to agree with Thomas on one thing: Reagan was a patriot, and when you compare his presidency to the current one, that fact really stands out.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:57 PM

A Somewhat Happy Ending to the Latest Death Threat Story...

...first covered in Climate Depot about the global warming believer and blog writer at the prominent liberal blog Talking Points Memo who asked: "at what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers?"

The gentleman appears contrite.

"The Insolent Braggart," as the anonymous blogger is known, isn't the first to wish death upon those of us who aren't convinced that human beings are causing soon-to-be-catastrophic global warming. (My own e-mail in-box is proof of that.) Over the years, I've reached the conclusion that most of these folks have stopped thinking of their political opposition as human beings, so when they express death wishes or grotesque threats, it doesn't seem real to them.

Until somebody who hasn't drunk the Kool-aid notices, that is.

Ironically, given how he got his 15 minutes of fame, "The Insolent Braggart" is probably a perfectly nice, if occasionally misguided, fellow.

Here's predicting that one day he'll feel about the global warming theory the same way he now feels about writing blog posts about executions.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:14 AM

GE's Jeffrey Immelt Fights Back

General Electric boss Jeffrey Immelt faced a tough crowd at GE's annual stockholder's meeting in April, and it's just now becoming clear how much he minded.

At the meeting, Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli asked if media reports that Immelt had tried to silence anti-Obama reporting on GE-owned networks are true. During her dialogue with Immelt, her microphone was cut off (it was restored after she continued talking anyway).

Then Fox News Channel O'Reilly Factor Producer Jesse Watters, a GE shareholder, asked Immelt about Keith Olbermann's handling of the Janeane Garofalo interview. Watters' microphone was soon cut off as well, but this did Immelt no good, as next up was the National Center for Public Policy Research Free Enterprise Project Director Tom Borelli, who, as I reported here in April, asked Immelt about GE's business with Iran, GE's lobbying for cap-and-trade, and GE's double-hit on senior citizen stockholders [by cutting dividends after saying it wouldn't while lobbying for cap-and-trade regulations that will dramatically raise consumer energy prices].

Following the meeting, in an apparent counterattack against Borelli, false allegations were made that Tom was there as a front for Fox News, which competes with GE-owned MSNBC and CNBC. Tom has no relationship with Fox News except that he appears on the network periodically as a guest and he lent an audiotape he made of the GE shareholder's meeting to Fox, which broadcast it (leading fact-challenged Keith Olbermann to falsely accuse Fox's Jesse Watters of making the perfectly legal tape and lying about it to GE security guards).

So why bring all this up now? Because it seems that GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt, whom one would think has better things to do, was so upset that three shareholders -- Deneen Borelli, Jesse Watters and Tom Borelli -- would ask him questions about the GE-owned networks' liberal bias, trade with Iran and lobbying for cap-and-trade that he ordered retaliation against a news media outlet that reported they had done so.

Specifically, the LA Weekly's Nicki Finke's Deadline Hollywood column reported Friday night that after Paul Bond of The Hollywood Reporter wrote a story about the three questions and the shareholder's meeting (a story immediately picked up by the Drudge Report), Immelt immediately ordered a GE-wide ban on Nielsen Business Media, which owns The Hollywood Reporter.

Here's how Nicki Finke of LA Weekly reports it:
That's when, sources inside and outside Nielsen Business Media tell me, GE Chairman Jeff Immelt ordered a GE company-wide ban on all of THR's parent company: advertising, editorial, the works. After a few days, the ban was reduced to GE's NBC Universal against Nielsen Business Media's The Hollywood Reporter and lasted six weeks. (My NBC Universal sources believe the ban was lifted yesterday.)

My reporting is the first about the ban or what led to it. "People need to know that GE is using its media arm to stifle coverage about its company, and this is coming from Immelt and Zucker," a Nielsen Business Media insider said.
Finke adds:
...sources inside and outside Nielsen Business Media tell me, GE Chairman Jeff Immelt personally issued a GE ban on all of the Nielsen company. "Jeff Immelt severed relations between all of GE with all of Nielsen over that story. Immelt called Zucker, and Zucker took it from there. Then, after a few days, GE backtracked, and then it became NBC Universal severing relations with The Hollywood Reporter."

According to my sources, Zucker ordered NBC Universal employees "not to talk" to THR. "They took away passes and tickets," says one insider. Another told me advertising was affected: it appears all or almost all advertising was stopped by NBC Universal at what was and continues to be a very important revenue time for the trade -- just before the Emmy nominations. Still another told me that NBC Universal employees stopped returning THR reporters' calls. One NBC Universal employee actually said to a THR reporter: "I'm not allowed to talk to The Hollywood Reporter."

Only a handful of people within the publication knew about the GE/NBC Universal ban. "It was all very mysterious," one reporter whose calls stopped being returned by NBC Universal told me. "No one told me specifically why. But I think some story really pissed them off."
I don't want to quote all of the Finke column here, so I'll just say GE's retaliation evidently did not stop there. GE reportedly also tried to use its advertising clout to get The Hollywood Reporter journalist, Paul Bond, fired (go to the Finke piece for details).

My conclusion: Never assume the corporate and news executives whose work product is being criticized aren't paying attention. GE's Jeffrey Immelt is one of the most powerful corporate executive in the world. His corporation owns not just MSNBC and CNBC, but the storied NBC itself. Yet despite his lofty position, he not only is paying attention, he's paying close attention, and he apparently doesn't like the criticism one bit.

Maybe someday he'll figure out that if he cleans up his networks and starts running GE like a capitalist firm instead of as a welfare queen-wannabe, he can get the criticism he hates so much to stop.

Note: For video on the story as it originally unfolded, go here for the audio of a Glenn Beck radio interview with Tom Borelli (prepared by Olbermann Watch) and here for video of the story on the Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly Fox News shows, including an interview with talk radio host Laura Ingraham about it.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:17 AM

Friday, June 05, 2009

BeldarBlog: POTUS as the Great Defender of the Faith

Beldar said it well:
Has [President Obama] actually read his present job description, or the rest of the Constitution and its amendments?
If he thinks fighting "against negative sterotypes of Islam wherever they appear" is what a U.S. President is elected to do, I think a few of his countrymen might differ. (That is, his countrymen here in the good old USA, not the ones in whatever country he was talking about that has one of the largest Muslim populations in the world.)

Funny, the left always seems to be claiming or at least acting like "separation of church and state" is in the Constitution, and now this.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:30 AM

Wednesday, June 03, 2009

On the Murder of Private William Long, Obama Finally Speaks

I guess the White House noticed rising numbers of complaints about the President's failure to give the apparently-political murder of Private William Long the same level of concern he gave to the apparently-political murder of Dr. George Tiller.

Michelle Malkin has the complete White House statement, along with commentary.

I agree with Michelle's commentary, but at least the President finally said something.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:46 PM

On Sotomayor, Rumors of Conservative Hypocrisy are Overblown

ScienceBlogs, which, despite the neutral and academic-sounding name, apparently is a left-wing political blog, has a curious attack on "the Right" today on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. Since husband David and I are in it, mildly, and post author Ed Brayton appears to have a glaring blind spot that causes him to unfairly malign several of my fellow conservatives, I thought I'd take a minute to set the record straight.

Brayton claims there is "glaring hypocrisy" of which some conservatives are guilty. Specifically, Brayton charges, in 2005 (Brayton actually wrote "1995") quite a few conservatives signed a letter to Republican Senators opposing the use of the filibuster to obstruct up-or-down 50-percent-plus-one votes on judicial nominees. The hypocrisy comes in, Brayton charges, because some of those same conservatives also signed a letter dated June 2, 2009 calling on Republican Senators to consider using a filibuster to, if needed, make sure the Senate debate on Sotomayor is "appropriately long."

Brayton misses, either intentionally or because he did not understand one or both of the letters, the important common position in each letter: Opposition to the use of the filibuster to obstruct a straightforward up-or-down 50-percent-plus-one vote.

The 2009 letter spells out very clearly that the letter's signers are not trying to obstruct a majority vote on Sotomayor, but merely make certain a meaningful debate on the nomination occurs. Paragraphs are devoted to the explanation, as well as very clear phrases, such as "the traditional filibuster, not intended to obstruct [a vote]."

It seems so clear to me, I don't see how Brayton could have misunderstood it.

P.S. The Other McCain rebuts another ridiculous criticism of the June 2 letter. Really, why do certain people feel so threatened by a call for a mere debate?


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:25 PM

Outrage of the Day: Obama's Silence on the Murder of William Long

Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the link to the Newsbusters version of my post on the lopsided news media coverage of the George Tiller and William Long murders.

Kudos to Michelle for calling President Obama to account for the shameful way Obama has ignored William Long's murder.

Obama was Private Long's commander-in-chief. Long was murdered specifically because of this service. On Sunday, President Obama lamented the murder of George Tiller, whose killer allegedly had political and religious motivations. On Monday, Private Long was murdered by someone else who likewise allegedly had political and religious motives. Long, unlike Tiller, had a direct tie to President Obama -- Long had sworn an oath to follow Obama's orders, even at the risk of his own life. Then, in the performance of these duties, apparently directly because he had sworn that specific oath, Long is murdered. And Obama, so quick to condemn ideological murder just a day before, says nothing.

Even after people complain, giving the clueless White House a clue that words were sought, Obama still says nothing.

You should read the whole thing, but here's part of Michelle Malkin's column on this:
President Obama issued a statement condemning "heinous acts of violence" within hours of Tiller's death. The Justice Department issued its own statement and sent federal marshals to protect abortion clinics. News anchors and headline writers abandoned all qualms about labeling the gunman a terrorist. An almost gleeful excess of mainstream commentary poured forth on the climates of hate and fear created by conservative talk radio, blogs, and Fox News for reporting Tiller's activities.

By contrast, President Obama was silent about the military recruiter attacks that left 24-year-old Private William Long dead and 18-year-old Private Quinton Ezeagwula gravely wounded. On Tuesday afternoon -- more than 24 hours after the attack on the military recruiting center in Little Rock -- President Obama held a press conference to announce his pick for Army Secretary. It would have been exactly the right moment to express condolences for the families of the targeted Army recruiters and to condemn heinous acts of violence against our troops.

But President Obama said nothing. The Justice Department was mum. And so were the legions of finger-pointing pundits happily convicting the pro-life movement and every right-leaning writer on the planet of contributing to the murder of George Tiller. Obama's omission, it should be noted, comes just a few weeks after he failed to mention the Bronx jihadi plot to bomb synagogues and a National Guard airbase during his speech on homeland security.

Why the silence? Politically and religiously-motivated violence, it seems, is only worth lamenting when it demonizes opponents...
Michelle scolds the media, too: "Is it too much to ask the media cartographers in charge of mapping the 'climate of hate' to do their jobs with both eyes open?"

Yes, apparently it is.

William Long was willing to give his life to his country. Because of this, he was (apparently) targeted by a domestic terrorist and killed. His sacrifice deserves at least token recognition by his commander-in-chief.

Michelle's June 3 blog post on this contains the full text of her column. After you read it, click the "send to a friend" tag at the end, and send the column to at least five friends.

Obama does things when he thinks they'll help make him popular. If we keep this story alive, Private Long eventually may get the presidential recognition he deserves.

Addendum: Vocal Minority has good thoughts on this as well, including a roundup of comments from other sources. (That's where I learned of Michelle Malkin's hat tip in the first place, as well.)


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:13 PM

Quote of Note: Obama on the Need for Justices to Have "Empathy"

"...while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases -- what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.

"In those 5 percent of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions or whether the commerce clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled -- in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart."

-Barack Obama, Senate Floor Speech on the Confirmation of Judge John Roberts, September 2005


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:16 AM

The Religious Right Didn't Kill George Tiller

"The Religious Right Didn't Kill George Tiller," by James Kirchick in the June 3 Wall Street Journal, is a powerful piece.

Kirchick is an assistant editor of the liberal New Republic magazine and a contributing writer to The Advocate, which is a national gay newsmagazine.

An excerpt:
...Within hours after the murder [of abortion doctor George Tiller], every antiabortion group in the country denounced the attack...

...These unqualified reproaches are nothing new. The organized antiabortion movement has always opposed violence against abortion providers. That has never stopped opportunistic prochoice activists, however, from conflating their passionate rhetoric with the behavior of individual criminals. True to form, on Sunday, Mike Hendricks of the Kansas City Star accused anyone who had criticized Tiller as a murderer (Tiller aborted healthy, nine-month old fetuses) of being an "accomplice" to his death.

Over the past decade this argumentative tactic has taken on an even more insidious twist. In addition to fighting violent, Muslim jihadists abroad, some liberals argue that America must deal with its own, homegrown terrorists. These are not just people who commit violence but millions of socially conservative evangelicals and Catholics -- "Christianists" -- who comprise the base of the Republican Party and threaten the stability of the country.

In 2007, former New York Times Middle East Bureau Chief Chris Hedges published a book called "American Fascists" that compared conservative evangelicals to European brownshirts of the 1920s and 1930s. That same year, CNN's Christiane Amanpour hosted a three-part series, "God's Warriors," that equated Christian (and Jewish) fundamentalists with Muslim extremists...

...But if the reactions to the death of Tiller mean anything, the "Christian Taliban," as conservative religious figures are often called, isn't living up to its namesake. If "Christianists" were anything like actual religious fascists they would applaud Tiller's murder as a "heroic martyrdom operation" and suborn further mayhem...

...There is no appreciable number of people in this country, religious Christians or otherwise, who support the murder of abortion doctors. The same cannot be said of Muslims who support suicide bombings in the name of their religion.

Yet speak of the disproportionately violent strain in Islam to a "progressive" person and you'll be met with sneering recitations of millennia-old Christian crusades or Jewish settlements in the West Bank. As for conservative Christians' contemporary political endeavors, lobbying to ban the teaching of evolution in schools or forbidding same-sex marriage simply does not threaten society in quite the same way as the genital mutilation of young girls or the bombing of the London transit system.

I happen to support a legal regime that would, in Bill Clinton's famous words, keep abortion safe, legal and rare. I hold no brief for the religious right, and its views on homosexuality in particular offend (and affect) me personally. But it's precisely because of my identity that I consider comparisons between so-called Christianists (who seek to limit my rights via the ballot box) and Islamic fundamentalists (who seek to limit my rights via decapitation) to be fatuous.

In the coming days, we will hear more about how mainstream conservative organizations and media personalities created an "environment" in which the murder of an abortion doctor became an inevitability. Just as talk radio was blamed for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, an attempt will be made to extend the guilt for this crime from the individual who pulled the trigger to the conservative movement writ large. But the Christian right's responsible reaction to the death of George Tiller should put to rest the lie that Judeo-Christian extremists are anywhere near as numerous or dangerous as those of the Muslim variety.
Read it all here.

P.S. If you are interested at all in former New York Times Middle East Bureau Chief Chris Hedges' book, "American Fascists," you can read a review I wrote of it in the Washington Examiner here.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:09 AM

Quote of Note: Obama on the Senate's Advise and Consent Role

"As we all know, there's been a lot of discussion in the country about how the Senate should approach this confirmation process. There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed.

"I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge's philosophy, ideology, and record..."

-Barack Obama, Floor Statement on the Confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito, Jr., January 26, 2006


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:02 AM

Tuesday, June 02, 2009

Outrage of the Day: To the Media, Some Murders Matter More Than Others

At the time of this writing, there are nearly 7,000 references to "George Tiller" in Google News.

There are under 500 for "William Long."

George Tiller, of course, was the Kansas abortion doctor murdered Sunday morning by a man who allegedly had political and religious motives.

William Long was the 23-year-old military recruiter murdered Monday morning by a man who allegedly had political and religious motives.

Are there 14 times more stories about George Tiller in Google News right now because Tiller's murder occurred approximately 24 hours before Long's?

Will there be approximately 7,000 references to William Long in Google News 24 hours from now?

I'm not holding my breath.

Postscript dated 6/2/09, 11:37 PM Eastern: As I add this postscript, it's approximately 24 hours after I posted the post above, and thus now time to see how many references to "William Long" will appear on Google News. If the number of news articles referencing William Long approximates 7,000, I will have been unfair. Checking now... the answer is... there are 949 references to "William Long" on Google News. A search for "George Tiller" now finds 8,561.

Cross-posted on Newsbusters, which has a wealth of additional coverage of perceived media bias in the coverage of the George Tiller murder.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:42 AM

Monday, June 01, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Political Decisionmaking at Government Motors

From "Lawmakers Seek to Influence Plant Locations" by Neil King, Jr. and Kate Linebaugh for the June 2 Wall Street Journal:
The Obama administration has said repeatedly that it won't use its majority stake in General Motors Corp. to meddle in the company's daily affairs. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill aren't being so shy.

The areas of potential concern to lawmakers range from proposed plant and dealership closings to longer-term plans for more fuel-efficient cars. And key elected officials are already promising to weigh in even as President Barack Obama and his aides say they will shield GM from outside pressure.

"I think members will express themselves for sure. We should do that," said Rep. Sandy Levin, a Michigan Democrat whose district lies just north of Detroit. "We should express the interests of our constituents."

...Lawmakers have already shown they have muscle with GM, and they aren't likely to back off now. Members of the Michigan delegation rebelled last month when word got out that GM, post-bankruptcy, planned to boost its imports of cars made at GM factories in China. As a result, GM agreed as part of its talks with the United Auto Workers union to reopen two idled plants by 2011 to manufacture as many as 160,000 compact cars a year.

Rep. Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat whose district north of Detroit includes three plants set to cease production, is one of many lawmakers in the region who want the refitted plants in their backyard.

He has backing from Democratic Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who said Monday that she is going to be "aggressive" about trying to snare a facility that will help keep some automotive jobs in the state, which has the highest unemployment rate in the country.

Ms. Granholm, besides countless television appearances pleading for aid, has made about a dozen trips to Washington to meet with Mr. Obama, the president's automotive task force and dozens of other officials...

"I think where GM builds its next plant is going to be more of a political decision than a business decision," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, a Republican from western Michigan. "For the foreseeable future, these car companies will be run by the Obama administration, and it will not be arm's length."...
Lawmakers care about their own prominence and re-electability, not profitability. They are not going to run General Motors successfully. Mostly (as is obvious from the priorities stated by the Congressmen in the article above, and by such things as the adoption of legislation forcing automakers to meet unrealistic and anti-family mileage standards), they aren't even going to try.

General Motors didn't stay competitive. Even hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars won't change that fact.

If the U.S. government actually wanted to help the domestic car business, Congress and the Administration would repeal mileage standards (which kill Americans as well as car companies), stop pro-union public policies and get the government out of car company management and ownership immediately.

The government isn't doing any of those things.



E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:00 PM

Michelle Malkin on New Black Panther Case

Michelle Malkin has been covering (here and here) the Department of Justice's decision on the Philadelphia New Black Panther Party alleged voter intimidation case.

She writes, "According to a legal source familiar with DOJ procedures, dismissing a lawsuit won by default is unheard of."

Hmmmm.

Michelle mentioned Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie's call for a special counsel, writing:
Project 21's Mychal Massie wants an investigation: "From all accounts, this was a clear-cut violation of peoples' right to vote without fear and intimidation, but the Obama Administration appears to be trying to sweep it under the rug," said Massie. "After all of the allegations about the Bush Administration politicizing the Justice Department, this smacks of either extreme ignorance or extreme hubris on the part of their successors. Whatever the case, an independent investigation is needed to get to the bottom of what's going on over there."
Michelle has a copy of the full affidavit of one of the eyewitnesses in this case. She has a link to a PDF of it in this post.

Mychal's press statement can be read here.


E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at [email protected].
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: , , ,

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:16 AM

Copyright The National Center for Public Policy Research