Amy Ridenour is the president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. She and her husband David, the vice president of the National Center, are the parents of three third graders. David's comments, like those of other National Center staff members, directors, associates and fellows, often appear in this blog.
The National Center for Public Policy Research is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, non-partisan communications and research foundation established in 1982 and based in Washington, D.C. We believe the principles of a free market, individual liberty and personal responsibility, combined with a commitment to a strong national defense, provide the greatest hope for meeting the challenges facing America in the 21st century.
Copyright 2003-2009 National Center for Public Policy Research
All links on this site are provided exclusively for educational purposes. No endorsement of the content of external links is implied; nor should any post on this blog be construed as endorsing or opposing any political party or candidate for public office.
Letters to this site or to The National Center may be published, including the name of the author. Please explicitly inform us if a letter is not for publication or if you prefer that it be published anonymously.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Six Project 21 Members on Glenn Beck Today
Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie and Fellow Deneen Borelli and Project 21 members Lisa Fritsch, Rich Holt, Richard Fair and Edmund Peterson are participating in a town hall-style edition of the "Glenn Beck" show airing on the Fox News Channel at 5:00 PM eastern today, Friday, November 13.
Beck is using this special event to highlight the thoughts and feelings of black conservatives.
Check your local listings for Fox News Channel on cable. Fox News is available on channel 118 on Fios, channel 205 on Dish Network and channel 360 on DirecTV.
This post was written by David Almasi, executive director of the National Center for Public Policy Research. Write the author at info@nationalcenter.org.
Hear the Borellis Speak on Cap-and-Trade at Harrisburg Tea Party Event This Saturday
Free Enterprise Project Director Tom Borelli and Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli are both featured speakers at a rally to be held in conjunction with the "March on Harrisburg, PA" on Saturday, November 14. The march and rally is sponsored by the Philadelphia Tea Party Patriots.
The rally will be held on the steps of the Pennsylvania State Capitol and is scheduled to begin at 2:30 PM eastern. Prior to the rally, people will gather in the parking lot of nearby City Island for a march across the Susquehanna River that is scheduled to begin at 2:00 PM eastern.
Tom and Deneen will both speak on the economic consequences of the "cap-and-trade" energy tax proposal supported by the Obama Administration and the liberal leadership of the House and Senate in Washington. The keynote speaker will be former House Majority Leader Dick Armey.
This post was written by David Almasi, executive director of the National Center for Public Policy Research. Write the author at info@nationalcenter.org. As we occasionally reprint letters on the blog, please note if you prefer that your correspondence be kept private, or only published anonymously.
I believe he should also, although I am agnostic on which individuals and/or businesses have met the legal definition of libel in this instance. (For one thing, I haven't seen everyone's comments in context.)
Aside from whatever satisfaction Rush might get from the experience (assuming that would outweigh the hassle factor), I think Rush would be doing a significant public service inasmuch as the news media is way, way too casual about throwing around false information. Yes, about conservatives, but generally as well. A few lawsuits might remind some reporters and editors that if they don't care about accuracy out of pride in a job well done, they might care about it to save their own bank balances.
E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.
Project 21's Joe Hicks to Discuss Race and Opposition to Obama on CNN HLN Friday Afternoon
Project 21 member Joe Hicks is scheduled to appear on CNN HLN (Headline News) to discuss the myth that racial animosity is fueling opposition to the policies pushed by the Obama White House.
Joe will be a guest of "Prime News" host Richelle Carey between 5:30 and 6:00 PM eastern on Friday, September 25.
Check your local listings for CNN Headline News on cable. HLN is available on channel 100 on Fios, channel 202 on Dish Network and channel 204 on DirecTV.
Written by David Almasi, executive director of the National Center for Public Policy Research. Write the author at info@nationalcenter.org. As we occasionally reprint letters on the blog, please note if you prefer that your correspondence be kept private, or only published anonymously.
Conservatives Take Social Networking to the Next Level
Though my musings are often posted here, on a blog -- a quintessential tool of the web savvy Gen Y-er -- I am really no more than a troglodyte, blessed to be surrounded by many kind, helpful, computer nerd friends and co-workers. My level of personal internet knowledge is about that of a hound's understanding of pancakes, they're good, but just as the hound would rather chase birds than learn the intricacies of a griddle (indulge me as I ignore the obvious lack of opposable thumbs for the purposes of this tenuous metaphor), I often find myself engaged in other endeavors besides exploring the inner workings of Al Gore's much heralded brainchild. For, despite my relative youth, I am a representation of the type of conservative that needs to pull her act together and jump on the internet/social networking/online media bandwagon.
Many already have. The vast swarms of patriotic Americans who showed up for Tea Parties and Townhall events around the country used networking tools like Facebook and Twitter to communicate, organize and coordinate. Their efforts yielded tremendous results and will serve as a model for future ventures. While many may argue that it was the passion fueled by representatives' deafness to constituent appeals and the Obama/Pelosi/Reid government's odious infringements on American liberty, the Internet's ability to connect people drove a large portion of the movement's success.
It is a relief to see the conservative movement embrace these new methods of communication. During the 2008 election Barack Obama and his youthful disciples were experts at manipulating the Internet to manage their movement and garner popularity. Conservatives, it appears, are catching up and taking the directive a step farther. This week, the Washington Times and the Heritage Foundation gave new meaning to bringing "power to the people" with the launch of a new website that does just that, only online, TheConservatives.com. Using various multimedia communication and information gathering applications, TheConservatives.com is a one-stop-shop for political research, networking, and debate.
The site's architects hope to use the site as a way to proliferate knowledge and facilitate connections among not just the conservative/independent hoi polloi, but also leaders in positions of power. John Solomon, executive editor and vice president for content of The Times expressed his enthusiasm:
TheConservatives.com creates a cutting-edge new marriage between the social publishing world of bloggers and the social networking world of Twitter, YouTube and the like. Most opinion sites today enable thought-leaders to talk down to the masses, but TheConservatives.com empowers users to change the direction of that dialogue, allowing the Joe the Plumbers of the world to speak up to major thinkers, like Newt Gingrich.
Conservatives continue to make great inroads in the world of Internet organization. While we conservatives were working, raising families, and going to church the left leapt ahead early on to harness the political power of the Internet. Now that we are catching up, conservatives can and will do it better -- as perhaps demonstrated by innovative TheConservatives.com.
I for one resolve to join this new site and become an expert on all things Internet... Join me!
Written by Caroline May, policy analyst at the National Center for Public Policy Research. Write the author at info@nationalcenter.org. As we occasionally reprint letters on the blog, please note if you prefer that your correspondence be kept private, or only published anonymously.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has a must-read op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today on health care, "A Growth Vision for Health Reform."
It begins:
A 3-year-old boy was recently diagnosed with a rare, aggressive, soft-tissue cancer in his bladder. Radiation treatment would have stunted the growth of his pelvic bones, hips and bladder and left him disabled. Radical surgery could remove his bladder, prostate and portions of his rectum. That would have left him impotent, using a colostomy bag, and urinating through another bag in his abdomen.
His parents chose a third option - a new "unproven" therapy where a proton beam precisely targeted the radiation dose so that it didn't cripple their son for life. The boy is now cancer-free and his body functions normally.
This story would seem to be an example of our health-care system at its best. But it is incompatible with the left's vision for overhauling the health-care industry...
Posted by Amy Ridenour. E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. Subscribe to this blog's feed.
G. Gordon Liddy to Interview Black Conservative Deneen Borelli
Project 21's Deneen Borelli will be a guest on the national G. Gordon Liddy radio program Monday, September 21, at noon Eastern.
The Liddy Show archives interviews online, so if you are a hard-working taxpayer who can't listen in live, you can catch it later here.
Momentarily walking down memory lane, I recall that when Project 21 was first formed in 1992, Gordon Liddy was one of the first major talk show hosts to interview its members. He hosted several Project 21 members in a roundtable-style discussion in his studio, covering a variety of issues, not least of which was the hypocritically intolerant and unacceptably hostile way (my terms) the left treats black Americans who choose to believe in free markets.
Seventeen years later, the left still can't stand it when a black American holds an opinion contrary to those of the socialist left.
As noted earlier, in other upcoming major interviews, the Fox News Channel has also booked Deneen for an appearance Sunday, September 20 at 11:05 AM Eastern and Deneen will appear on the Great American panel on the September 24 Hannity Show on the Fox News Channel.
E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.
Daily Kos Wants Tea Party Participants to Forgo All Government Services, But Still Pay All Taxes
At times, activists of the superficial left write such stupid things, it is embarrassing to read them.
Such is the case with a Laura Clawson Daily Kos post Friday in which lefties are encouraged to send a faux "Socialist Free Purity Pledge" around the Internet. The gist of Clawson's message is that anyone who attended a Tea Party rally is a hypocrite if they from this point forward ever use a single thing funded by the federal government.
The post had at the time I read it 265 comments, most of which were favorable to the idea, which many of them actually thought was clever.
I ask myself, can the activist left be so uniformed as to believe that when it comes to government spending, there are only two positions possible, that of wanting the feds to spend more and grow larger, and that of wanting the feds to spend not one penny? That anyone who does not support President Obama's government-expansion plans is, ipso facto, the strictest of libertarians?
Seeing how badly the left governs when in office, I conclude "yes." Yes, they really can be this ignorant.
Which explains why the leftists in Congress and the White House think socialized medicine works and that the best way to deal with the Kremlin is from a position of slobbering, supplicating subservience.
The leftists think anyone who attended a Tea Party rally should sign a document pledging they will never use a government service again...
...but what the lefties don't put in their "Socialist Free Purity Pledge" is a pledge of their own to pass legislation offering to refund the tax dollars coercively paid by every person who might choose to sign their Purity Pledge and who sticks to it.
So selfish, these lefties. In their bitter little world, even the people who don't use any government will be forced to pay for it.
E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.
Rebutting False Racism Claims - Upcoming Deneen Borelli TV Appearances
Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli will be a guest on Fox's "Your World with Neil Cavuto" today at approximately 4:10 PM Eastern to discuss claims by former President Jimmy Carter and others that critics of the Obama Administration are motivated by racism. Speaker Nancy Pelosi's comments today comparing current political rhetoric to that preceding the murders of two San Francisco elected officials in 1978 are also likely to be discussed.
The Fox News Channel has also booked Deneen for an appearance Sunday, September 20 at 11:05 AM Eastern.
Deneen also has been scheduled to appear as a part of the Great American panel on the September 24 Hannity Show on the Fox News Channel, and, as noted yesterday in this blog, will be a guest on Fox and Friends on Friday, September 18 at approximately 6:20 AM Eastern.
Deneen also continues to be interviewed by a variety of print and radio news organizations, so if you are a fan, keep an eye & ear out for her as she continues to rebut the offensive nonsense being spewed by the intolerant left (for example, this).
E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.
Project 21's Deneen Borelli on BBCAmerica Wednesday Night to Discuss Race and Obama Opposition
Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli is scheduled to appear on the "BBC World News America on the BBCAmerica channel on Wednesday September 16 at 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM eastern.
Deneen has been asked to discuss the issue of race and opposition to the Obama Administration agenda. Deneen was a speaker at the 9/12 rally on the Capitol grounds this past Saturday. Coverage of her speech can be found here.
Deneen's comments on the issue of race and Obama in light of former President Jimmy Carter's comments on the issue can be found here.
Check your local listings for BBCAmerica on cable. BBCAmerica is available on channel 189 on Fios, channel 135 on Dish Network and channel 264 on DirectTV.
This post was written by David Almasi, executive director of the National Center for Public Policy Research. Write the author at info@nationalcenter.org. As we occasionally reprint letters on the blog, please note if you prefer that your correspondence be kept private, or only published anonymously.
ABC Won't Air Anti-ObamaCare Ad, But a Double-Standard is in Play
ABC and NBC are refusing to air a commercial critical of Obama's vision to remake health care as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Uncle Sam, but ABC's reasons for doing so don't stand up to scrutiny.
The ad, created by the League of American Voters, features neurosurgeon Dr. Mark J. Cuffe warning about threats posed by government-run health care such as rationing and limits on medical innovation. The commercial can be viewed above or by clicking here.
For reasons of full disclosure, be advised that League executive director Bob Adams is a former National Center for Public Policy Research employee. He did not, however, solicit this posting and my discovery of his link to the organization came after I was already appalled by ABC's duplicity.
According to a report posted on FoxNews.com, both ABC and NBC are refusing to run the ad nationally in its present form. In particular, ABC spokeswoman Susan Sewell said in a statement: "The ABC Television Network has a long-standing policy that we do not sell time for advertising that presents a partisan position on a controversial public issue... Just to be clear, this is a policy for the entire network, not just ABC News." NBC might accept a revised version of the ad.
The ad is running on local affiliates of ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox.
Former Clinton Administration political advisor Dick Morris, who is now helping out the League of American Voters, disputed ABC's assertion of impartiality. He said: "It's the ultimate act of chutzpah because ABC is the network that turned itself over completely to Obama for a daylong propaganda fest about health care reform... For them to be pious and say they will not accept advertising on health care shuts their viewers out from any possible understanding of both sides of this issue."
In fact, during ABC's June 24 White House event in which Obama was able to lay out his health care agenda with virtually no opposition from a small and select audience, the network did air an ad from PhRMA - the pharmaceutical lobby group that is a strong proponent of ObamaCare. It also ran an ad from Health Economy Now, a coalition made up of PhRMA, labor unions and special interest groups that is also backing ObamaCare.
It seems there is a double-standard at ABC as to what constituted partisan activity. And yet they insist they are being objective.
The National Center has been tracking national advertisers of ABC's daily "World News" program all summer as well as its specials on health care and oil. You can find a list of these sponsors and their contact information here. Write or call those sponsors. Tell them what you think of a network that restricts the ability of both sides of an issue to make their case.
In the commercial, Dr. Cuffe warned that what he feared might happen here under Obamacare is already happening in places such as Canada and England. The National Center recently published a compilation of stories of people denied proper and efficient care under government-run health care schemes abroad that can be downloaded for free by going here.
This post was written by David Almasi, executive director of the National Center for Public Policy Research. Write the author at info@nationalcenter.org. As we occasionally reprint letters on the blog, please note if you prefer that your correspondence be kept private, or only published anonymously.
I issued a call to the President to drop his planned address on health care to a joint session of Congress earlier today. I suggested that the President instead meet with Congress in a Q&A session similar to Britain's "Prime Minister's Questions" in the House of Commons.
I did this because I believe another lecture by the President will get us (as a nation) no where. We've heard all his pretty words. Now we need to hear words that have specific, tightly-definable meaning. I doubt the President's teleprompter will provide him with that, but I think there's some chance that Members of Congress (assuming they don't get all tongue-tied because they are in the presence of the President, that is), given the chance to ask questions with followups, could get some specifics out of him.
I make no bones about the fact that I don't want an expansion of government-run health care in the United States. I'll be straightforward: I'm betting the President would muck up a genuine Q&A (especially if followups were permitted) and help defeat his own plan. but if I'm wrong about his abilities, I also think such a Q&A is his best chance to move his ball forward.
The President has gone as far as he can with charm, and charm is all he's going to be able to give us from the podium in front of Congress. A tour de force while engaging Congress in a specific, detailed way, however, would win him some support -- maybe enough to win the day for his side.
But, as I say, I'm betting he doesn't have it in him. Another show in front of the podium is his safe choice, and it is overwhelmingly likely that that's the one he's going to take.
For those interested, the full text of my statement earlier today can be found here.
E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.
According to its website, the National Legal and Policy Center "has uncovered a plan by the White House New Media operation to hire a technology vendor to conduct a massive, secret effort to harvest personal information on millions of Americans from social networking websites."
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.
Postal Supervisors Are Not Happy With Our President
The National Association of Postal Supervisors is not happy with President Obama for what it says are his "negative references... without knowledge of the facts" about the performance of the U.S. Postal Service.
The Heritage Foundation, as usual, has excellent points to make about what Americans can learn from our experience with a "public option" postal system.
For myself, I wonder why the President -- despite his on-again-off-again-on-again statements about the public option over the last few days -- is so wedded to public health care option if he believes UPS and FedEx are doing fine, while the post office is not.
I hate to say it, but sometimes I wonder if he really thinks things through.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.
Warning: You won't want to read this apology if you want to keep offensive words out of your life.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.
Egg on Face of Left, But It's Probably the Right's Fault Anyway
The left-wing Think Progress website reports that the situation of Kenneth Gladney, the "Don't Tread on Me" t-shirt salesman who reportedly was assaulted at a town meeting last week, "underscores the vital need for health care reform" because Gladney "has no affordable health care option available."
Another website the group quotes, the Moderate Voice, says, "If anything was more calculated to make the Right look foolish than this St. Louis incident then I'd love to see it."
But of course the Right is always defending the accuracy of the mainstream media, so the whole muck-up is probably still our fault.
To Think Progress' credit, it updated its blog post with the information that Mr. Gladney does have health insurance.
Nevertheless, something more needs to be said: this debate is not only, or even primarily, about access to health insurance. It is about access to health care. No one argues that Mr. Gladney got that, and promptly, too.
As a new book the National Center for Public Policy Research will soon release, "Shattered Lives: 100 Stories of Government Health Care" aptly demonstrates, prompt (or even any) access to health care is not something people in Britain, Canada, Australia or other nations with government-run health care systems can take for granted.
Insurance they got.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.
Outside [a town hall meeting held by Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-MO], conservative activist Kenneth Gladney handed out yellow flags with "Don't tread on me" printed on them and was, he said, attacked. "He spoke to the Post-Dispatch from the emergency room at St. John's Mercy Medical Center, where he said he was awaiting treatment for injuries to his knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face. Gladney, who is black, said one of his attackers, also a black man, used a racial slur against him before the attack.
"'It just seems there's no freedom of speech without being attacked,' he said."
Don't look for the White House to intervene in this case.
Addendum: Video and more information at Gateway Pundit and numerous posts at Missourah blog.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.
House Republicans to Introduce Health Care Plan Thursday
House Republicans will introduce a health care bill tomorrow.
For those with an interest, below is the text of a one-pager describing the bill that the conservative House Republican Study Committee, chaired by Rep. Tom Price, M.D., is distributing on the Hill:
EMPOWERING PATIENTS FIRST ACT
A Solution from the Republican Study Committee for Access to Affordable, Quality Health Care for All Americans
Pillar #1: Access to Coverage for All Americans
Makes the purchase of health care financially feasible for all - Extends the income tax deduction (above the line) on health care premiums to those who purchase coverage in the non-group / individual market. And, there is an advanceable, refundable tax credit (on a sliding scale) for low-income individuals to purchase coverage in the non-group / individual market.
Covers pre-existing conditions - Grants states incentives to establish high-risk / reinsurance pools. Federal block grants for qualified pools are expanded.
Protects employer-sponsored insurance - Individuals can be automatically enrolled in an employer-sponsored plan. Small businesses are given tax incentives for adoption of auto-enrollment.
Shines sunlight on health plans - Establishes health plan and provider portals in each state, and these portals act to supply greater information, rather than acting as a purchasing mechanism.
Pillar #2: Coverage Is Truly Owned by the Patient
Grants greater choice and portability - Gives patients the power to own and control their own health care coverage by allowing for a defined contribution in employer-sponsored plans. This also gives employers more flexibility in the benefits offered.
Expands the individual market - Creates pooling mechanisms, such as association health plans and individual membership accounts. Individuals are also allowed to shop for health insurance across state lines.
Reforms the safety net - Medicaid and SCHIP beneficiaries are given the option of a voucher to purchase private insurance. And states must cover 90% of those below 200% of the federal poverty level before they can expand eligibility levels under Medicaid and SCHIP.
Pillar #3: Improve the Health Care Delivery Structure
Institutes doctor-led quality measures - Nothing suggested by the Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research can be finalized unless done in consultation with and approved by medical specialty societies. It also establishes performance-based quality measures endorsed by the Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement (PCPI) and physician specialty organizations.
Reimburses physicians to ensure continuity of care - Rebases the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) and establishes two separate conversion factors (baskets) for primary care and all other services.
Promotes healthier lifestyles - Allows for employers to offer discounts for healthy habits through wellness and prevention programs.
Pillar #4: Rein in Out-of-Control Costs
Reforms the medical liability system - Establishes administrative health care tribunals, also known as health courts, in each state, and adds affirmative defense through provider-established best practice measures. It also encourages the speedy resolution of claims and caps non-economic damages.
Pays for the plan - The cost of the plan is completely offset through decreasing defensive medicine, savings from health care efficiencies (reduce DSH payments), ferreting out waste, fraud, and abuse, plus an annual one-percent non-defense discretionary spending step down.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.
The New York Times "house conservative" says: "I feel politically closer to Barack Obama than to House Minority Leader John Boehner." Hmmm... wonder why they hired him...?
Associated Press reports: Secret testimony claims Senators Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad knew they got preferential treatment from Countrywide. (H/T Ace) The Senators themselves say, essentially, "hogwash."
Marta Mossburg: "The average state government employee benefit package in Maryland is $24,347 per year..." (And still the lady at the Maryland DMV wouldn't answer my question!)
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.
Struggling for purpose in light of the election of the first black president, the NAACP moves in the wrong direction, says a group of black conservatives, when it endorses a climate policy in tandem with the World Wildlife Federation that is opposed by a majority of black Americans.
"I'm all in favor of the nation's oldest civil rights group redefining its mission and agenda; however this indicates that the NAACP continues to struggle with current realities that face the nation's black communities by promoting policies they are opposed to," said Project 21’s Joe Hicks, who is also a PajamasTV commentator. "If this group simply wants to be defined as another left-wing organization touting the weak science on climate change, then it is destined to face ever-growing irrelevancy."
Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli added: "It's outrageous for the NAACP to place liberal ideology over the welfare of the nation. By aligning with the environmental activist lobby, the NAACP is now an official member of 'Club Green' - the exclusive club of elites waging war against fossil fuels. Tragically, the cover charge for their membership - job losses, reduced standard of living and high energy costs - will be borne disproportionately by the very people the NAACP claims to represent."
The NAACP's zeal for regulation is opposed by most black Americans. A recent poll of 800 black Americans found 76 percent believe Congress should make economic recovery, not climate change, its top priority. 56 percent believe policymakers do not adequately consider the quality of life of black Americans when addressing climate policy. When asked how much they would pay for gas and electricity to reduce greenhouse emissions, 76 percent said they would be unwilling to pay more than $50 a year while 52 percent were unwilling to pay anything at all.
Hicks added: "The NAACP shows how out of touch it has become by advocating Obama Administration policies on so-called climate change that impact the very population that claim to represent - poor, black Americans. Adding an increased burden of higher coast for essential things like gasoline and electricity at a time of economic hardship demonstrates that they have no independent course of leadership, but instead is blindly following this administration's disastrous lead."
Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), a doctor in the real world, gives a good description of the majority's health care destruction bill in these comments delivered to his fellow members of the House Education and Labor Committee. Following Price's sharp exchange with Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA) over something Price says Speaker Pelosi said and Miller says she didn't, my favorite part is Price saying this: "You know what [the American people] will have access to? They have access to an opportunity to get in line. They'll be able to get in line."
Price also said, flatly, that the House Democrats' bill "will destroy health care in this nation."
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.
National Center's Tom Borelli Discusses Cap-and-Trade on Glenn Beck
In case you missed it, here's the segment of Glenn Beck's Fox TV show from Wednesday night featuring Tom Borelli of the National Center for Public Policy Research and David Kreutzer of the Heritage Foundation.
The topic is cap and trade, USCAP, corporations doing the bidding of the left, the Waxman-Markey global warming bill and the use of last minute amendments filled with goodies (amendments Congress wasn't given time to read, of course) by the House leadership to get the legislation approved by the House.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. Subscribe to this blog's feed.
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."
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'
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."
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."
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 info@nationalcenter.org. Subscribe to this blog's feed.
Tom Borelli to Tackle Cap and Trade on Fox Thursday
Tom 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 info@nationalcenter.org. As we occasionally reprint letters on the blog, please note if you prefer that your correspondence be kept private, or only published anonymously.
"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.
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 info@nationalcenter.org. Subscribe to this blog's feed.
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.
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 info@nationalcenter.org. Subscribe to this blog's feed.
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 info@nationalcenter.org. Subscribe to this blog's feed.
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 info@nationalcenter.org. Subscribe to this blog's feed.
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 info@nationalcenter.org. Subscribe to this blog's feed.
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.
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 info@nationalcenter.org. Subscribe to this blog's feed.
What Happens When You Tie Half Your Brain Behind Your Back?
Now we know what can happen when Rush Limbaugh ties half his brain behind his back...
...he gets co-oped by an organization that stands for much of what he and his listeners stand against.
Rush Limbaugh recently did two radio spots for the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), helping drive traffic to the organization's website and, presumably, donations to its coffers.
Limbaugh, who frequently boasts that he can beat liberals in a debate with half his brain tied behind his back, apparently overlooked the fact that HSUS is a radical animal rights group. Think People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, only they keep their clothes on.
Here are a few select quotes from HSUS leaders, past and present...
"Human beings aren't superior, we're just different..." - Dr. Michael W. Fox, former HSUS Scientific Director
"Our goal is to get sport hunting in the same category as cock fighting and dog fighting. Our opponents say that hunting is a tradition. We say traditions can change." - Wayne Pacelle, HSUS CEO
"...In promoting the rights of animals, we are doing so in a world where animals do not have equal status... The human species... will never concede equality to animals and will, I predict, resist with increasing vehemence all attempts to endow them with such." - John A. Hoyt, former HSUS president
"...We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States... We will take it species by species... state by state." - Wayne Pacelle, HSUS CEO
Perhaps Limbaugh confused HSUS with local Humane Societies, which are completely independent entities and tend to be less political, providing shelters and spay and neutering programs.
Confusion can occur when oxygen to your brain is cut off for extended periods.
Just ask Colin Powell.
This post was written by National Center for Public Policy Research Vice President David Ridenour. Write him at info@nationalcenter.org. Please state if a letter is not for publication or if you prefer that it be published anonymously.
The ...investigation of the Speaker of the House has been an opportunity to direct public attention to several issues that conservatives have considered key. Among these: the unprecedentedly heavy-handed tactics of the majority in Congress...; the frequently-disastrous self-serving involvement of Members of Congress into foreign affairs...; the leaking of classified information for partisan gain...; the unfair targeting of conservatives only in politically-motivated "ethics" probes.
If you guessed May 22, 1989, you are correct.
It could almost be written today, couldn't it?
The paragraph comes from an in-house report I wrote on May 22, 1989 regarding National Center for Public Policy Research activities to bring public attention to the ethics problems of Speaker of the House Jim Wright of Texas. I found the report while searching some old files for something else entirely and couldn't resist posting part of it after I realized the date was twenty years ago exactly today.
I was amused by the following paragraph:
Our second activity was a "Clean the House" rally "in demand of a full and fair investigation of Speaker Wright" held at the Democratic National Committee on April 20... The Democrats were not pleased. An internal DNC memo circulated to all staff inside the headquarters in advance of the rally instructed DNC staffers to ignore the rally and forbade them from looking out the windows overlooking the rally site. Some staffers disobeyed, however, and threw a large stack of copies of photographs of Republican Members of Congress and leading conservatives (Oliver North, Jerry Falwell) from the DNC roof onto the rally.
I no longer recall, but as we all had carried brooms at the rally, I guess we swept them up.
E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. Subscribe to this blog's feed.
Diverse Coalition Appeals to Congress Regarding Unjust Provisions of Omnibus Land Management Act
Readers with an interest in property rights, civil rights or simply staying out of jail for doing something one has no idea is illegal will want to review the coalition letter sent to the Congressional leadership, the Attorney General and to President Barack Obama by the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Association of Applied Paleontological Sciences and the National Center for Public Policy Research during the last 24 hours.
Our respective organizations have diverse viewpoints, but we share a deep and abiding belief in due process under the law. We believe that that Congress should perform careful diligence before adding violations to the criminal codes, that federal crimes should be narrowly defined and show clear criminal intent, and that the use of asset forfeiture must be narrowly tailored so that it does not unduly punish the accused before a trial has proven their guilt. As such we have grave concerns about sections of the pending Omnibus Land Management Act of 2009, which passed the Senate last week as H.R. 146, regarding "paleontological resources preservation."
These sections, now contained in the bill under Subtitle Dof Title VI, seek to empower the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior to"protect paleontological resources on Federal land using scientific principles and expertise." We understand that preventing theft of and harm to important fossils on federal land is a serious objective. However, we are concerned that the bill creates many new federal crimes using language that is so broad that the provisions could cover innocent human error. There is also, in defining the crimes, a troubling lack of words such as "knowingly" that clearly establish criminal intent as a prerequisite for prosecution. As Georgetown University legal ethicist John Hasnas has written, to serve the greater goal of justice, all criminal laws must require the government to establish that "one had to knowingly or at least recklessly act in a morally blameworthy way to be subject of criminal punishment."
H.R. 146 would make it illegal to excavate, remove, damage, or otherwise alter or deface or attempt to excavate, remove, damage, or otherwise alter or deface any paleontological resources located on Federal land" without special permission from the government. Penalties for violations include up to five years imprisonment. "Paleontological resources" are loosely defined as all "fossilized remains ... that are of paleontological interest and that provide information about the history of life on earth." We are troubled by this definition that paleontological organizations say could cover many common rocks that adults and children collect. The Association of Applied Paleontological Sciences has warned that with this wording, it is easy to visualize "a group of students unknowingly crossing over an invisible line."
We are also concerned about the bill's prohibition against "false labeling" of fossil specimens, an offense that also carries criminal penalties. The bill makes it a crime to "make or submit any false record, account or label for, or any false identification of, any paleontological resource excavated or removed from federal land." This broad language could criminalize innocent misidentifications, limit scientific inquiry, and infringe on the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech. Fossil labeling is a complex process, and even the top museums of the world have been known to revise labeling in their exhibits upon scholarly review or new facts being discovered ..Thus, the fear of making an honest mistake in fossil labeling or even having fossil identifications proven "false" in light of new scientific discoveries could have a chilling effect on new research in paleontology.
We are pleased that the Senate recently improved provisions regarding forfeiture. Language in earlier versions of the legislation would have allowed government officials to engage in the pretrial seizure of "all vehicles and equipment of any person" accused of theft or harm to a "paleontological resource." Forfeiting a person's property without a conviction undermines the bedrock principle of our legal system: that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Past abuses of forfeiture led to bipartisan passage of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, and we had feared that these provisions would go against the spirit of these reforms. The Senate heeded our concerns with an amendment, and as passed on March 20, "vehicles and equipment" were removed from the forfeiture language, so that the forfeiture provisions apply only to the "paleontological resources" taken from federal land. This is a marked improvement, and we would oppose any attempts to reinsert forfeiture of personal property in a revised bill.
Above all, we are concerned that a bill containing new federal crimes, fines and imprisonment, and forfeiture provisions may come to the House floor without first being marked up in the House Judiciary Committee. That committee is tasked with providing centralized oversight of criminal legislation, thereby enhancing the fairness and consistency of those enactments. As such we strongly urge that the criminal provisions of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act be stripped from any final legislation until they are subject to Judiciary Committee review and amendment."
Representatives of the signatory organizations of this letter would be happy to meet with you or members of your staff to address these concerns.
Sincerely,
Caroline Fredrickson Director American Civil Liberties Union Washington Legislative Office
Tracie Bennitt President Association of Applied Paleontological Sciences
John Berlau Director, Center for Investors and Entrepreneurs Competitive Enterprise Institute
Kyle O'Dowd Assoc. Executive Director for Policy National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
David A. Ridenour Vice President The National Center for Public Policy Research
Cc: House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer House Majority Whip James Clyburn House Minority Whip Eric Cantor House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith President Barack Obama Attorney General Eric Holder
For more information on this issue, see this blog's previous coverage of this here and here. ________________________________
Looks like the lefties get mighty edgy when they get questioned.
Earlier this week we had Disney Chairman Robert Iger swearing at conservative activist Tom Borelli. Now we have the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Charlie Rangel, asking a young man who asks him about his subsidized cars and apartments, "why don't you mind your G-- d----- business"?
I'm thinking it became the young man's business when he had to help pick up the tab. _____________________________
Outrage of the Day: U.N. Secretary General Calls U.S. "Deadbeats"
Apparently dissatisfied with the United States paying a full 22 percent of the expenses of the ridiculously wasteful and notoriously corrupt United Nations, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon referred to the U.S. as a "deadbeat" nation while on a visit to the U.S. Congress Wednesday.
Ban effectively said that it is not only important for the United States to be the world's largest donor to the United Nations by an overwhelming margin, be perennially kicked in the teeth and insulted by U.N. proceedings, and host the United Nations here in America on some of the world's most valuable land donated by an American in a building refurbished by a massive interest free-U.S. loan, but we must also pay our dues on the timetable the U.N. specifies.
The offensiveness of the sentiment combined with the stupidity of the choice of location in which to say it makes this a whopper of a gaffe indeed.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Let us get out of the United Nations and let's kick the whiny you-know-whats out of here.
For additional commentary, see also Don Surber's "Dump Mr. Ban" on his Charleston Daily Mail blog, Jules Crittenden's "Deadbeat Nation" on the Jules Crittenden blog and Rory Cooper's "United Nations says to America: 'You're Deadbeats'" on the Heritage Foundation's The Foundry blog. Surber and Crittenden appear to be as irritated as I am; this is a quote those of us who appreciate the United Nations for what it truly is can't let die.
Let us get this one on some t-shirts.
Rory Cooper's piece should be read for information about Senator John Kerry's nauseating response, which is to give the United Nations ratification of its dangerous Law of the Sea Treaty. Kerry's obviously never going to give up his hate-America-first schtick; he must have some kind of psychological problem.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs called Ban's word choice "unfortunate," and called on the U.N. to respect the rather substantial financial contributions of American taxpayers (a sentiment we hope the Administration begins to extend to domestic budgetary matters). It wasn't quite the statement I, or, I suspect, Don Surber, Jules Crittenden or Rory Cooper would have made, but considering how pro-U.N. Barack Obama is, it was a good B+ effort.
Outrage of the Day: Disney CEO Swears at Conservative Activist at Shareholder Meeting
Walt Disney Company CEO Robert Iger dropped the "f-bomb" on conservative activist and company investor Tom Borelli at the Walt Disney Company's annual shareholder meeting Tuesday.
Details can be found in this National Center for Public Policy Research press release:
Disney CEO Drops F-Bomb at Shareholder Meeting
Iger's Nasty Comment to Investor Rooted in 9/11 Miniseries Controversy
Washington, D.C.: Walt Disney Company CEO Robert Iger scowled at and said "f--- you" to Tom Borelli, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project, at Tuesday's annual Disney shareholder meeting.
Iger's remark came after Borelli told shareholders about Iger's refusal to sell the DVD or the distribution rights of the miniseries "The Path to 9/11."
Borelli had just ended his presentation and was attempting to shake Iger's hand on his way back to his seat. Iger, who was sitting in the audience at the time, also refused to uncross his arms and shake Borelli's hand. Borelli, who had received applause from fellow shareholders after his presentation, went back to the podium and precisely reported to his fellow shareholders what Iger had just said, to gasps from the assembled crowd. Borelli then sat back down.
"The Path to 9/11" is a miniseries based on the federal "9/11 Commission Report." The miniseries aired in 2006 on the Disney-owned ABC television network. The shareholder meeting was held at the Paramount Theatre in Oakland, California.
"So much for the family-friendly Disney reputation," said Borelli. "Shareholders have a legitimate concern about the political and financial implications of Iger's actions. It wasn't until today that the depths of his contempt were revealed."
Borelli, who was attending the meeting on behalf of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, a mutual fund with which he is affiliated, registered a shareholder proposal asking the company to be more transparent about the company's political donations due to concerns about Iger possibly using the company’s assets to advance Iger’s personal political agenda. Borelli cited Disney's refusal to sell the DVD or its rights to "The Path to 9/11" miniseries as evidence of iger's bias. Iger is a long-time donor to liberal politicians and the miniseris was thought to be embarrassing to officials who served in the Clinton Administration. Withholding distribution of the DVD for personal political reasons would be a conflict with shareholder interests.
In his statement he made at the shareholder meeting, Borelli said:
Unfortunately, because CEO Bob Iger is putting politics before profits - shareholders are being denied an opportunity to benefit from DVD sales of the ABC-TV miniseries "The Path to 9/11."
Since its broadcast in September 2006 - Iger has refused to profit from this project - despite its significant market potential.
"The Path to 9/11" received seven Emmy nominations, had 25 million views over two nights and it was highly ranked in Nielsen ratings - the first night it was number-two and on the second night it was the number-one - the most-watched TV program in the country.
Clearly, "The Path to 9/11" is a valuable asset!
Not only has Iger decided that Disney will not to sell the DVD - he will not allow the sale of its distribution rights. Lions Gate was told the distribution rights were not available, and Disney has ignored repeated attempts by our company to negotiate the purchase of the miniseries distribution rights.
This is the second year in a row that Borelli has pressed Iger and Disney to release "The Path to 9/11" on DVD. Borelli has offered to negotiate to purchase the rights to the miniseries in three letters to Iger and the Disney board of directors. Disney has never replied.
Additionally, the Fund's shareholder proposal for more transparency with regard to the company's political contributions received 24 percent support.
Borelli added: "Disney truly can say it's putting people before profits - in this case, it's Bill and Hillary Clinton. Lions Gate inquired about buying the rights to 'The Path to 9/11' and was rebuffed... It's a shame that Disney is allowing these profits to slip away at a time when Disney is laying off employees."
Disney has said webcast of the meeting will be made available at http://corporate.disney.go.com.
Washington, D.C.: Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie today hailed a new U.S. Supreme Court decision prohibiting the use of the Voting Rights Act to supercede other laws to create predominantly black voting districts, saying the decision is a new protection against the abuse of civil rights laws for potential partisan gain.
"It continues to confound me that those whose party is responsible for preventing blacks from voting until 1964 now want to illegally redefine voting districts because it serves their best interest," said Massie. "It should go without saying that creating special black voting districts - for partisan gain or otherwise - is against the spirit of civil rights."
In the case of Bartlett v. Strickland, a 5-4 decision by the Court struck down the redistricting of District 18 in North Carolina. The prevailing concern among lawmakers involved in the redistricting process after the last census was adherence to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. This requires the political process to be "open equally" to minority voters. In doing so, a state law prohibiting the division of counties to create voting districts was violated to raise the percentage of blacks of voting age in the new District 18 from 35 percent to over 39 percent. One of the affected counties challenged the North Carolina General Assembly's process.
This decision is important because it can prevent the political manipulation of voting district boundaries based on race. In his majority opinion, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: "Section 2 does not guarantee minority voters an electoral advantage."
District 18, as previously drawn, gave Democrats a 59 percent to 41 percent electoral advantage among registered voters. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), however, criticized the decision as a "cramped reading" of the Voting Rights Act and a "serious blow" to civil rights.
"The only cramped reading is on the part of Leahy and his ilk. Even if his rhetoric is spoken without intended malice, his comments aid the nefarious work of partisans who seek to preserve ill-gotten political gains under the guise of promoting civil rights," added Project 21's Massie. "It's amazing the things that liberals can say with a straight face."
Project 21 is a black leadership network dedicated to promoting free-market ideals and the diversity of opinion among black Americans.
Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992. For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21's website at http://www.project21.org/P21Index.html.
Anti-global warming protester uses a "Stop Global Warming" sign as an ice scraper at rally at the U.S. Capitol coal-fired power plant Monday
"We don't want the world to boil, no coal, no oil!"
There was no chance, despite the warning of this protest chant, of anything boiling outside in Washington, D.C. today. Global warming activists who threatened "mass civil disobedience" in the nation's capitol Monday probably never expected to be competing with the biggest snowfall of the season.
Not going to get much power from this snowy solar panel...
Yet this seems to happen every time the global warming activists plan a major event to talk about how hot our planet is going to get. (For more information about this practice, see the children's story "Chicken Little.")
...as the non-functioning light bulbs supposedly powered by that solar panel demonstrate.
Hundreds of activists - mostly students, from the looks of it - were protesting Nancy Pelosi's private coal-fired power plant. It's the plant that powers the Capitol complex. Until recently, Pelosi and company pretended to have a carbon-neutral Congress by using taxpayer dollars to buy "carbon offsets" that essentially gave them little more than peace of mind. This practice has since been discontinued. An analysis found it might not be doing any good, and they no longer have faith in throwing money at their embarrassment (now, if we can get them to expand this line of thinking to their spend-and-tax agenda).
David Almasi and Devon Carlin of the National Center for Public Policy Research
Anyway, the Competitive Enterprise Institute enlisted the help of The National Center for Public Policy Research, FreedomWorks and other groups to point out that coal and oil provide plentiful and affordable energy to average Americans. Energy bills are up this year, and there is no way wind and solar - the darling energy-generation methods of today's protestors - are going to provide people with the amount of energy they need at the prices they can afford.
No one is against new and alternative sources of energy, but it's their way or the highway in the minds of these protestors. If they are successful, expect bigger bills and energy shortages in the future.
This blog post was compiled largely from notes compiled by David Almasi. _________________________
Brian M. Riedl: Stimulus Bill Should Not Bail Out States
Brian M. Riedl says it is a bad idea for Congress to bail out what he terms "irresponsible states" in the stimulus bill:
...Congress already sends $467 billion a year to state and local government--up 29 percent after inflation since 2000. This is well beyond what is needed to reimburse states for federal mandates (and Washington has imposed few new unfunded mandates on the states since 1996). The feds continue to give heavy subsidies to state health, education, and transportation programs. But apparently that is not enough.
States depend on volatile tax sources such as income taxes, so common sense suggests building rainy day funds during booms to cushion the inevitable recessions. And yet states keep responding to temporary revenue surges with permanent new spending programs. Between 1994 and 2001, states flush with new revenues shunned rainy day funds and instead expanded their general fund budgets by 6.2 percent a year.
All booms eventually end, and these free-spending states left themselves totally unprepared for the 2002-2003 economic slowdown. Yet instead of sufficiently paring back their bloated budgets, the states demanded--and received--a $30 billion bailout from Washington in 2003.
Bailing out someone who has behaved irresponsibly encourages future misbehavior. And that is just what happened: After the 2003 bailout, states went right back to spending--with annual budget hikes averaging 7.2 percent over the next four years.(Some also built up their rainy day funds, but not enough.)...
Project 21 says there are at least three provisions in the so-called "stimulus" bill that could funnel money to the radical left-wing activist group ACORN:
Black Activist Slams "Stimulus" Spending Making Billions Available to ACORN
In the nearly trillion dollars in spending contained in the so-called "stimulus" bill the U.S. Senate is now considering are programs that could go into coffers of the left-wing group ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now).
"It's outrageous that potentially billions of taxpayer dollars may end up aiding a group instrumental in causing the economic crisis in the first place," said Deneen Borelli, a fellow with the Project 21 black leadership network.
ACORN became infamous during the 2008 presidential campaign when it's involvement in fraudulent voter registration efforts and ties to the presidential campaign of Barack Obama were revealed. ACORN lobbying and intimidation tactics targeting financial institutions are also blamed for helping to create the current mortgage crisis.
In an analysis of the Senate bill by Matthew Vadum of the Capital Research Center on the web site of The American Spectator, there are at least three provisions in the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009" that could be used to funnel money to ACORN:
* Title XII would make $1 billion available for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). Vadum writes: "The [CDBG] program gives [local politicians] wide latitude... to use federal dollars on local projects that they wouldn't dream of spending their own local tax dollars on. ACORN loves CDBG because it is adept at lobbying for CDBG funds."
* The Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity Program would provide $10 million for rehabilitating low-income housing.
* The 4.19 billion Neighborhood Stabilization Program would help with foreclosure relief. $3.44 billion would be available to states, localities and nonprofit groups such as ACORN, while $750 million would be available to exclusively to groups.
ACORN has been linked to multiple vote fraud investigations. 63 percent of voter registrations submitted by ACORN in St. Louis in 2003 were determined to be invalid. In Washington last year, only six of 1,800 voter registrations filed in Seattle were valid. Washington Secretary of State Scott Reed called the incident "the worst case of voter-registration fraud" in state history.
Additionally, in a New York Post commentary on the mortgage crisis, University of Texas at Dallas economics professor Stan Liebowitz wrote: "From the current hand-wringing, you'd think that the banks came up with the idea of looser underwriting standards on their own, with regulators just asleep on the job. In fact, it was the regulators who relaxed these standards - at the behest of community groups and 'progressive' political forces" such as ACORN.
Project 21's Borelli added: "Just imagine the havoc ACORN could accomplish with as much as $5 billion in taxpayer money. It's obvious that giving ACORN billions of dollars will do nothing to stimulate the economy - but it will guarantee left-wing political success. It seems like little more than a political payoff, and it is just plain wrong."
Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992. For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21's website at www.project21.org/P21Index.html
Project 21's Deneen Borelli on WWOR-TV This Sunday
By David Almasi:
Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli will discuss black history and politics this Sunday (February 8) on WWOR, the New York-area television superstation.
Deneen will be a guest on the "Real Talk" program that will be broadcast at 12:30 pm eastern. She will be discussing, among other things, what it means to be a black conservative and her feelings about the progress of the new Obama Administration. She is joined on the program by the Reverend Forrest Pritchette of Seton Hall University and host Brenda Blackmon.
Outside of the New York City media market, WWOR can be found on the Dish TV satellite system on channel 238. Additionally, WWOR is carried on many local cable systems - sometimes under the name MyNetworkTV.
This post was written by National Center for Public Policy Research Executive Director David Almasi. To send comments to the author, write him at info@nationalcenter.org. Please state if a letter is not for publication or if you prefer that it be published anonymously.
Tom Borelli, PhD, director of the National Center's Free Enterprise Project, will be a guest of Bruce Elliott on WBAL-Baltimore at 8:35 am eastern on Saturday (February 7) to discuss the Senate's so-called economic stimulus legislation.
In a press release earlier this week, Tom said about the legislation:
In reality it's a left-wing spending plan masquerading as economic stimulus. Only about 5 percent of the current bill will be used for infrastructure costs while millions of dollars are earmarked for other pet projects, such as renovations for the Department of Commerce headquarters, digital television coupons, the National Endowment for the Arts and the liberal group ACORN...
The plan is really a rewards program for the left-wing groups that got Obama elected. The only thing stimulating about this plan is the anger it's arousing among Americans.
In the Baltimore-Washington area, WBAL can be found at 1090 AM.
You can also listen to Tom from anywhere in America by going to the WBAL web site and clicking the "Listen Live" tab that can be found at the top left of the page.
This post was written by National Center for Public Policy Research Executive Director David Almasi. To send comments to the author, write him at info@nationalcenter.org. Please state if a letter is not for publication or if you prefer that it be published anonymously.
Ak'Bar Shabazz: States and Localities Should Be Wary of Federal Strings
Columnist and spokesman Ak'Bar Shabazz of Project 21 says states and localities should be very wary that huge federal infusions of cash don't bring with them a decline in local autonomy. ____
Open Letter to the U.S. Senate on the So-Called Stimulus
Along with other individuals from a variety of organizations, I signed the following letter, distributed today to members on the Senate, urging them not to spend hundreds of billions of dollars in a so-called stimulus plan. The plan has been rushed; it is wasteful, and it won't work.
In my view, a true plan to stimulate the economy would cut taxes, trim regulations where possible and help make energy more accessible and thus, more affordable.
The text of the letter and the list of signers follows:
February 4th, 2009
To the Members of the U.S. Senate:
We the undersigned public interest organizations, representing millions of members and supporters nationwide, hereby call upon you to reject the $819 billion spending bill that passed the House of Representatives last week.
This legislation will total some $1.2 trillion when interest is calculated over the next decade, and represents an unsustainable growth of government.
In addition, the Congressional Budget Office calculates that the budget deficit will already be $1.2 trillion for 2009. On January 3rd, the Washington Post reported that the deficit could total as much as $2 trillion. In part, it depends on how badly the recession hits the U.S., but also on how much productive capital the government takes out of the broader economy.
The irresponsible expansion of the budget to bail out state governments from their own budget deficits, expand Medicaid, boost education spending, food stamps and unemployment benefits, build federal buildings, provide more for public housing, construct climate change supercomputers, erect trade barriers overseas, create refundable tax credits, and make special interest payouts will not stimulate sustainable economic growth.
Instead, the astronomical growth of government spending, coupled with further monetary easing and protectionism, will discourage investment, savings, and capital creation, because in the longer term it means higher taxes, higher interest rates, and inflation. It will destroy jobs in the private sector, thus increasing individual dependency on government.
Importantly, it will steep American taxpayers ever deeper into a spiral of debt, now nearly $10.7 trillion. That includes $4.3 trillion owed in the form of unfunded obligations to Social Security, Medicare, and other commitments, and $6.4 trillion held privately, $3 trillion of which is held overseas. 40 percent of the debt held privately comes due this year. The only way for the government to pay it is to borrow yet more money.
As a result, the federal government is running the serious risk that it will default on its financial obligations, as the nation's creditors during the current economic downturn may be unable to continue sustaining the uncontrolled growth of spending, leaving the nation in financial ruin.
America needs a plan now to begin paying down the national debt, not an ill-conceived scheme that will make that task impossible for our children and our children's children. The nation needs to tighten its belt, and learn how to live on less credit, less borrowing, and less debt.
This is a change that must occur at the individual level, at the county level, the state level, and the national level. It is not a change that should begin by doubling down on a hasty, careless gamble.
In addition, permanent tax cuts that change incentives are much more effective than temporary targeted tax incentives and spending. What economists call the "permanent income hypothesis" shows that individuals and businesses only change their spending and investment habits significantly when they expect policy changes to be permanent. It takes more than one-year, for instance, to build a factory, and businesses may not do so if they think that tax incentives are only temporary.
Preventing tax increases on individual income, capital gains and dividends, changing the tax code to allow full-cost, first-year expensing for business equipment rather than the arbitrary IRS depreciation schedule, and lowering the U.S. corporate tax rate, among the highest in the world, would yield much more bang for the buck in ensuring a rapid economic recovery than the current package of massive spending with a sliver of targeted tax cuts.
Again, on behalf of our members nationwide, we the undersigned urge you to reject the $819 billion spending bill now being considered. Instead, we ask you to promulgate a real plan for change, to finally set the nation's fiscal house in order, to provide permanent tax relief to businesses and individuals, to free the American people from the boom-to-bust economic cycle, and to at last retire the national debt.
Sincerely,
Fred L. Smith, Jr. President Competitive Enterprise Institute
Gary Aldrich Chairman CNP Action, Inc.
William Wilson President Americans for Limited Government
Mark Williamson Founder and President Federal Intercessors
Thomas McClusky VP for Government Affairs Family Research Council
David N. Bossie President Citizens United
James L. Martin President 60 Plus Association
Duane Parde President National Taxpayers Union
Mark Chmura Executive Director Americans for the Preservation of Liberty
Thomas Schatz President Council for Citizens Against Government Waste
Dr. William Greene President RightMarch.com
Ken Blackwell Chairman Coalition for a Conservative Majority
John Berlau Director Center for Investors and Entrepreneurs
Ron Shuping Executive Vice President of Programming The Inspiration Networks
Alex-St. James Chairman African American Republican Leadership Council
Cliff Kincaid President America's Survival, Inc.
Richard Falknor Chairman Maryland Center-Right Coalition
Amy Ridenour President National Center for Public Policy Research
At least $8.6 billion of President Obama’s proposed $1.2 trillion stimulus plan is meant to fund dubious special interest policy initiatives of environmental activists and should immediately be jettisoned, says Deneen Borelli, full-time Fellow with the Project 21 national black leadership network.
"It's outrageous that taxpayer money is slated to be used to fund the agenda of environmental special interest groups. These special interest groups are using global warming alarmism to fund dubious projects while discouraging the use of fossil fuels," says Borelli. "If liberal lawmakers really cared about stimulating the economy, they would remove rules and regulations that block the development of more fossil fuels. This would provide good-paying jobs and lower energy costs for Americans. Instead, they appear only interested in using their combined force of money, power and influence to fleece taxpayers of their money and their freedom."
Among the green earmarks in the bill legislation cited by Borelli:
* A $2 billion expenditure for "near zero emissions powerplant(s)." This money apparently will be used to revive the FutureGen coal-fired power plan in Mattoon, Illinois. Federal funding for FutureGen was cut off by the Department of Energy in 2008 due in part to excessive construction costs. Reviving funding has been a goal of Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), and is included despite past criticism of coal-based power generation by President Obama, Vice President Biden and Energy Secretary Stephen Chu.
* $600 million set aside to purchase new hybrid vehicles for federal employees. While there is no documented need for the replacement of vehicles in the federal motor pool, hybrid vehicles have been criticized for performance, cost, safety and the environmental risks created through the production and disposal of their batteries.
* In a December 6, 2008 address, then-President-elect Obama called for a "massive effort" for “replacing old heating systems and installing efficient light bulbs" in federal buildings. The stimulus bill would earmark $6 billion to address this by, among other actions, changing the use of conventional incandescent light bulbs to riskier compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), which pose a risk of mercury poisoning if broken.
Borelli added: "Lawmakers are cramming a feel-good energy and environmental agenda into this so-called stimulus bill. Investing in FutureGen, hybrid vehicles and light bulbs will only stimulate the special interest groups that are inflating the 'green bubble' that could be the next thing to threaten our nation's economic stability."
Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992. For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21's website at www.project21.org/P21Index.html
Maiden Speech of a New Senator: Will History Erase Our Debt?
Freshman Senator Mike Johanns (R), a former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and Nebraska governor elected last November, gave his maiden speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate just now on the topic of President Obama's controversial stimulus plan.
A choice quote from the speech, as jotted down quickly by me:
It's as if some thought we could just use a credit card, and history itself would somehow forgive the debt.
Senator Johanns made other good points I was not able to get down, but I wouldn't be surprised if his office soon posts the text of his remarks on his Senate web page, which can be found here, and, of course, it will appear later in the Congressional Record. _____
From Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), on the stimulus plan:
We got into this mess by spending and investing money that didn’t exist. We won’t get out of this mess by doing more of the same.
Dr. Coburn also said:
...the American people will be nauseated by the numerous and shameless special interest projects that have been slipped into this bill in spite of President Obama’s call to keep this bill free of earmarks. Including a $246 million earmark to bailout Hollywood when Hollywood just enjoyed its biggest January ever is insulting to the millions of American families who are struggling to make ends meet. This bill also contains the biggest earmark in history – a $2 billion handout to the not-ready-for-prime-time ‘FutureGen’ near-zero-emission power plant in Matoon, Illinois that has been called ‘prohibitively expensive’ by the Washington Post and is not supported by scientists at MIT..."
At Energy and Commerce Hearing, House Conservatives Call CEOs to Account
Looks like conservatives on the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee are calling turncoat corporate CEOs to account on the Hill today:
From Stephen Power's account on the Wall Street Journal's Environmental Capital blog, as posted there by Keith Johnson:
The Waxman era begins: The first congressional hearing of 2009 on climate change got off to an acrimonious start Thursday, as House Republicans blasted a group of corporate CEOs and environmental groups for staging a press conference instead of appearing before the House Ènergy and Commerce Committee to answer lawmakers’ questions about their ideas for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The Republicans also vowed to hold members of the US Climate Action Partnership accountable for their own use of fossil fuels, by demanding they explain to the committee whether they traveled to Washington by corporate aircraft and how much fuel they used.
“Be prepared for a battle,” Illinois Republican John Shimkus said at the start of the hearing by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Mr. Shimkus vowed to “hold accountable” any Democrats from coal-abundant and petroleum-producing states who vote in favor of legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions and set up an emissions trading system in which companies would have to buy permits allowing them to pollute.
Mr. Shimkus and other Republicans called such legislation, which is favored by President-elect Barack Obama, “a shell game designed to hide” the true costs of regulation from consumers...
Good, good, good.
Using Congress for profiteering is reprehensible; doing it in the name of conservation while flying in on corporate jets to lobby for disproportionately-higher energy costs on lower-income and minority populations makes it doubly so.
I'm not at the hearing, but who wants to bet they have it heated nice and toasty on this bitterly cold global warmy January day?
The only creature comfort the conspirators will be missing is a collection of puppies for the CEOs and the liberal Congressmen to kick on their way out of the hearing room (or so I assume).
We issued a press release on this expensive nonsense earlier this morning:
Energy Bubble, Anyone?
Henry Waxman Gives Public a Look at the Corporate-Congressional Alliance that Threatens to Raise Energy Prices in Pursuit of Private Profit
Thursday's first hearing of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee since Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) ousted Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) as chairman is drawing criticism from the National Center for Public Policy Research, which says the hearing illustrates how powerful corporate interests are working with influential special interests and with the liberal majority in Congress to use government to enhance private profits at great cost to economic growth and liberty.
The hearing will, according to the committee's announcement, "present the perspectives of members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership ('USCAP'), a coalition of over 30 businesses and nongovernmental organizations that has called for Congress to pass legislation to address the climate change threat."
"Today's hearing on the U.S. Climate Action Partnership exposes the dangers posed by the new political economy," said Tom Borelli PhD, director of the Free Enterprise Project at the National Center for Public Policy Research. "The alignment of corporations, special interest groups and liberal members of Congress aiming for this legislative goal is frightening. The housing bubble was born from an alliance of similar interest groups and now we are about to repeat the same mistake with energy policy."
Corporate members of USCAP are trying to profit from a government-mandated "cap and trade" anti-global warming policy by selling so called carbon credits from reductions in greenhouse gases. Under cap-and-trade, emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, would be limited by the federal government. Companies that are over their emission allotment will be forced to purchase credits from another company that is below its allowance.
Under a cap-and-trade policy, companies would be forced to raise energy prices to reduce their emissions. This would unleash a series of adverse economic consequences and hardships for Americans, as the National Center's Vice President David Ridenour noted in a recent article in Investor's Business Daily:
* A study by the National Association of Manufacturers projected that emissions caps, similar to those rejected earlier this year by the U.S. Senate calling for a 63% cut in emissions by 2050, would reduce U.S. gross domestic product by up to $269 billion and cost 850,000 jobs by 2014.
* According to a study conducted by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the restrictions could raise gasoline prices by 29%, electricity prices by 55% and natural gas prices by 15% by 2015.
* A 2007 report by the Congressional Budget Office, examining the costs of cutting carbon emissions just 15%, noted that customers "would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households would."
"The alignment of corporate and government agendas for the so called "social good" is eerily similar of the warnings in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged which described the unraveling of capitalism" said Deneen Borelli, a full-time Fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research-sponsored African-American leadership network Project 21.
"Pursuing legislation that will raise energy prices in the middle of a recession is economic suicide. It exposes the inability of these CEOs to connect the dots between economic growth and their future earnings," added Tom Borelli. "Let's not forget USCAP corporate membership reads like a who's who list of corporate losers; AIG and Lehman Brothers were founding members and General Electric stock is trading at multiyear lows. Ford, Chrysler and GM are also members -- need I say more?" said Tom Borelli.
"Unfortunately for shareholders, the USCAP CEOs, like their banking industry colleagues, have executed poor risk management regarding the impact of cap-and-trade on their businesses. While banking CEOs thought real estate prices could only go up, USCAP CEOs somehow think there is no downside risk to high energy prices and handing over more power to government bureaucrats. They also think the environmental special interest groups are their friends. That's incredibly naïve," Tom Borelli said.
"We know for a fact that some USCAP CEOs have not analyzed the impact of cap-and-trade on their business. In response to my question about the company's participation in USCAP at the Caterpillar shareholder meeting in 2007, CEO James Owens admitted he did not conduct a cost benefit analysis of cap-and-trade on his business. Shareholders should be outraged over such incompetence," said Deneen Borelli.
"ConocoPhillips CEO James Mulva has also not done his homework," said Tom Borelli. "ConocoPhillips has made a significant investment in Canadian oil sands, which release about three times the amount of carbon dioxide than traditional oil. Since cap-and-trade will increase the cost of carbon emissions, Mulva is lobbying to increase the cost of his investment. In addition, his USCAP partner Natural Resources Defense Council is taking legal action to block the processing of the oil sands at a ConocoPhillips refinery."
"Finally, if General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt is so concerned about the state of the planet," Tom Borelli Continued, "why was he selling electricity infrastructure equipment to Iran? Nuclear Iran poses a much greater threat than carbon emissions."
America doesn't need cap and trade and it doesn't need a carbon tax. Any look at the sorry state at the USCAP portion of America's business community, however, makes clear that of the two, cap and trade is worse, because it pits the profit interests of big business directly against the pocketbook interests of the little guy. ____
Paul Weyrich: Someone Who Led the Fight for All We Believe In
Joyce and Paul Weyrich in 1992
It was with great sadness that we at the National Center for Public Policy Research learned today of the passing of conservative leader Paul Weyrich.
Paul was never officially affiliated with the National Center, but we learned so much from Paul over the years that when we purchased our national headquarters building in 2004, we named the first floor in his honor. That should tell you something about the appreciation we have for Paul, as nonprofit organizations usually reserve naming opportunities for major financial donors. It also will tell you something when I say that we haven't yet named any of the other floors.
I first met Paul in 1982, when I gave him a call at the suggestion of another conservative leader. The National Center for Public Policy Research was brand-new back then, and no one had ever heard of it. Paul was about 39 and already prominent; I was 22 and utterly anonymous. He was out when I called, but he called me back within an hour. He had no idea who I was, but he still called me back himself. Many would have had an underling do it.
That week I started attending the coalition meetings run by Paul's Coalitions for America. That's where Paul's genius for leadership really showed. Those meetings were the center of the conservative movement. In the pre-Internet days; these meetings were by far the main information-sharing mechanism for many dozens of influential organizations and elected officials, but there was a lot more to them than that. Information about a problem or goal on a public policy issue would be shared by one of typically 5-8 guest speakers per meeting. The speaker would make one or more specific action requests (and woe to the speaker who came without action requests). Then the organization representatives assembled would volunteer to help (and woe to us if enough of us didn't). And then Paul typically would add his two cents: he'd name other things that could be done; other people who could help; offer to call legislators or others on the speaker's behalf to move roadblocks, or whatever else might be needed. On the fly, he'd design a complete victory strategy and recruit a team to get the victory accomplished.
Oh, and did I mention that the whole thing would be done in ten minutes or less? That was the rule. Speakers had five minutes to convince everyone about the seriousness of their issue and what help they needed to prevail or, well, Paul would help. And when he did, let me tell you, you'd be able to hear him in the back.
The news media typically describes Paul as the founder of the Heritage Foundation, as the CEO of the Free Congress Foundation, and as the major Religious Right figure who coined the phrase "Moral Majority." All true, but can you imagine the impact of Paul's meetings, week-in, week-out, held from the 1970s and continuing today? And the impact made, then and for years after, by the conservatives who sat in his meetings and learned how Washington works? How it really works?
Another thing about Paul that set him apart from many is that he was no toady. If you were a prominent elected official and you squished out or made lame excuses, Paul let you have it, no matter how many years of seniority you might have or how famous your name might be. (In fact, the more power you had, the harder he might be on you, because he expected more from those who ought to know better.) Typical Washington behavior is to toady-up to power (part of the reason so many of our legislators are so bad). Not Paul's style at all.
I remember a meeting Paul attended in the White House back in 1983. We had assembled a half-dozen prominent Congressmen and Senators and a group of heads of conservative organizations to urge then-President Reagan to stay stalwart against the nuclear freeze (the left-wing suicidal lunacy of the day) and to use his presidential bully pulpit more often to condemn the proposed freeze. We all talked about our meeting strategy before the President came in, mutually agreeing that we would speak strongly and forcefully, firmly and specifically listing examples of opportunities we thought the Reagan Administration was failing to take that could help bring the American people to its side on these critical defense issues. It was also agreed that the most prominent people in the room, the well-known defense-hawk Congressmen and Senators, would take the lead. The rest of us would back them up.
But when President Reagan came in, a funny thing happened. In Reagan's presence, most of the Congressmen and Senators morphed into wimps. The heartfelt concerns they had for how the Reagan White House was conducting public outreach on defense issues were not spoken of. In their place were platitudes of praise. Despite being Congressmen and Senators (and well above average ones at that), they were too intimidated by the President's presence to be constructively critical.
Do you suppose the same thing happened to Paul? (You won't suppose so if you are among those who knew him.) In tone and demeanor, he was every bit as respectful to the President as were the elected officials, but when Paul talked, the President understood what was on the table. Paul wasn't the only one of us to speak, but his firm approach carried the day. Had we left it to the elected officials, the meeting would have been little more than a photo op.
I was present in only a very minute fraction of all the meetings Paul attended with powerful people over the years, but I believe his willingness to be frank when needed about the real issues (the hoary cliche', 'speak truth to power,' for once, fits) would have given many others who otherwise might have been intimidated into silence the courage to speak. Only the Lord knows how much good has been done.
I suppose you could almost call Paul a populist leader, not in the sense that he was led by public opinion (Paul was led by principles and merits), or ever motivated by anti-intellectualism, but in the sense that he held everyone to the same equal standard regardless of lofty position or lack of it: You'd better pitch in and stick to your conservative principles, or you'd hear about it, whether you were a Senator or you were an intern. But if you did do those things, you could get as much praise as an intern as you would as a Senator (maybe more).
I posted at the top of this post a picture of Paul with his wife, Joyce, I took at a party in 1992. I think it captures Paul's vibrancy and personality more than stock photos. You could not do what he did, and he did a lot, without being constantly active and working very, very hard.
Many of the anecdotes I've heard and read about Paul today are only about conservatism. I bet here's one you aren't seeing in many places: Paul could make up bad -- and I mean really bad -- puns better than anyone.
Paul also was there for friends. There are many people who were much closer to Paul than I was, but on one occasion some years back when I was going through a rough patch, Paul called and told me that if I was ever having a sleepless night, and needed somebody to talk to, even if it was 2 or 3 in the morning, I could call him and he'd talk with me for as long as it took to make me feel better. To demonstrate he really meant it, he then sent me a hand-written note in the mail with the same message.
I never called him in the middle of the night, but there were many times I remembered him making the offer. I can only imagine how many times he made a similar offer to others, but I bet he helped many. Journalists covering Paul's passing are telling us Paul coined the phrase "moral majority," and so he did, but which of these things is a greater epitaph?
Not counting the Christmas card we received from Paul and his wife today, the last time David and I heard from Paul was yesterday. He sent us a handwritten note thanking us for something he needn't have thanked us for at all. Most of the note was personal, but it included this one paragraph about policy:
Guys, the Obama Administration will be difficult for us as Obama tolerates no opposition. We must win the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' fight. If not we can kiss goodbye to any revival in 2010 and 2012. I know you will help.
Project 21 Senior Fellow Deneen Borelli spoke on the future of the conservative movement at the 2008 Restoration Weekend. FrontPage Magazine has now reprinted a transcript of her remarks, along with those of others from the conference.
From Deneen's remarks:
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the Restoration Weekend. I am feeling restored! I don't know about you. I'm glad to be here among this distinguished panel, and I think it's very important for us to talk about the future of the conservative movement. And briefly I'm going to describe the reasons I see the recent political defeat and the outline of a strategy that will carry us to victory.
Now, let me state the obvious: we lost, okay? During this past election the conservatives suffered a significant political loss. Not only did Obama win all the states that Kerry and Gore won, he also won the traditional red states like Virginia and North Carolina. Obama won by an electoral landslide, with momentum that carried him with a good number of Senate and House seats. In summary, using a football analogy, it was a rout, and we got rolled!
So, where do conservatives go from here? Let's start with the good news. I don't believe the election was a referendum on conservative principles. How could it be when John McCain was the candidate? While McCain is a true American hero, he's not a conservative. We remember legislation like McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman – I think you know where I'm going with this.
Similarly Obama's victory was not a referendum for liberalism. Obama won simply because the majority of the America people were mad at the Bush Administration. And, boy, are they going to get the change that they never seen before in their lives!
Now, one major problem is that too many Republican politicians have abandoned the conservative principle of limited government. From a marketing perspective, some of our Republican politicians have muddled the message of the conservative brand.
Since I have more experience in marketing than politics, I view our challenges chiefly from a marketing perspective. To summarize, brand management failed, the conservative market share dropped, and the competition forged ahead.
Now, the conservative brand has been mismanaged from our sales force, Republican elected officials. Over the last eight years we've seen an explosion in spending: the expansion of government under Bush's watch, Ted Stevens from Alaska, the "bridge to nowhere"….
Going back to marketing basics, the success of any brand depends on whether the product or service can successfully deliver on its core attributes, consistency, quality, and also deliver as a feel good for a person to relate to that product.
So, tell me something, how many of you were proud to wear the McCain button? How many of you are happy to get those RNC donation letters in the mail still? Not too many. The bottom line is this, the future of the conservative movement depends on communicating the brand's key attributes: limited government, national security, and low taxes.
Now, by adhering to these themes through policies and actions, the conservative movement can generate political momentum to win elections. Now, given this fractured state, the conservative brand needs to be reinvented.
First, we need to demand that our Republican politicians communicate these core values. Knowing that once elected, that some officials tend to go to the dark side, and so we need to establish a mechanism for them to enforce these values.
Our conservative leaders need to be reminded that actions have consequences. To ensure compliance we need to establish a grassroots effort of quality control, sticking with the marketing theme.
Individuals can blog, write letters, attend townhall meetings, and report on what our elected officials are doing and saying. And, believe me, elected officials tend to have e-mail alerts that let them know that their name is in the press. They don't like negative press. So if an elected official claims to be conservative, and they don't live-up to their words, they should be recalled, just like a defective product.
The conservative movement must also reach new demographics, something that has been mentioned already by some of our panelists. Now, Obama got 67% of the Hispanic vote. He also got 95% of the black vote. Now, this is where an extension of the brand is necessary. Copying the way consumer products are marketed to different groups, the advertising of conservative values need to be tailored to reach new demographic audiences.
Now, unfortunately, many blacks voted for Obama because of his race and not his policies. Now, tragically, Obama's policies will propagate government dependency in urban communities. His overall message is, "Ask not what you can do for your country, but ask what your country can do for you," the opposite of John Kennedy's message.
With all the problems in urban communities -- failing schools, single parent households, unemployment, drugs, gangs, big government cannot solve these problems. So to chip away at Obama's overwhelming popularity, the conservative movement needs a top, down and bottom, up approach.
Now, from the top, conservatives need to communicate the conservative message by, let's say, a popular, well-known, trusted black leader. Maybe in the entertainment world, sports world, media world. Oprah Winfrey comes to mind, but we all know where Oprah Winfrey stands. And if she would only say, "School choice is great," can you imagine what a game changer that would be? Someone like Lynn Swann comes to mind.
From the bottom, conservative principles can be communicated through popular mediums which were referenced up here, such as YouTube, videos, music videos. It is a hit means of reaching our younger generation to get them involved, educated and informed about the issues. To this point, there are several popular videos on YouTube right now, where there's a young Black man, a formal liberal mind you, who raps about the message on the conservative movement. If you're interested, you can find it on Macho Sauce Productions, and he's got a really positive message. I'm hoping it's connecting with the younger generation. And we have Joe the Plumber.
So, in conclusion, despite the recent election and the overwhelming support of demographic groups for Obama, anything is possible. I didn't think I would be standing up here talking a year ago, so anything is possible.
But I'd like to leave you with this thought. I wonder how many of you know that the Marlboro brand cigarette was formerly marketed towards women, complete with a pink filter. It had a pink filter to match lipstick. Now, in the '60s the brand was remarketed, totally transformed, with the Marlboro country western theme. Now, ladies, you remember the cowboys – the handsome men, tall, chiseled features. It was the creativity of this vigilant brand management that helped Marlboro maintain its brand identity, its brand loyalty, and the 50% market share that it still has today.
So as we look towards the future of the conservative movement, the brand must be revitalized, and it must be communicated, and we must stay on message with our values: limited government, low taxes, and national security. These are the powerful concepts that can attract newcomers and reinforce brand loyalty.
Thank you.
Marlboro didn't sell as a pinko brand. There's a lesson in that. _____
See Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie in NYC Panel Discussion on Effects of Obama Victory on Black Youth This Monday
By David Almasi:
Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie will participate in a panel discussion sponsored by The Smith Family Foundation on "Does the Election of Barack Obama Portend the Effective End of American Racism?"
The event will be held on Monday, December 1st at 6:30pm at the Lighthouse Theater (111 East 59th Street Between Park and Lexington Avenue, New York, NY). The event is free and open to the public, but people wishing to attend must RSVP by clicking here.
Joining Mychal on the panel will be Dr. John McWhorter of the Manhattan Institute, Fredrick C. Harris of Columbia University and Elaine Gross of ERASE Racism.
This is how the Smith Family Foundation describes the premise of the panel discussion:
Barack Obama's 2004 Democratic Convention speech made reference to inner city black children with books being mocked by their classmates for "Acting White." Will these smart children now have a new answer, "Acting White? No, I'm acting like the President!" - laying an inspirational foundation for their better educational outcomes and better futures? Or are the problems of inner city children far too entrenched, with failing schools, gang violence and too few male role models, for the election of a President to materially affect their lives?
And will Barack Obama's rise to the highest office in the land change how African-Americans see opportunity, spurring more black entrepreneurs into business and increasing the general belief that success in America is possible? Or does that ignore a historical truth - that enthusiasm for any political candidate is inherently fleeting once the rough and tumble of modern Beltway politics takes its inevitable toll - and that Obama's ability to inspire people might wane, right along with his newness?
This post was written by National Center for Public Policy Research Executive Director David Almasi. To send comments to the author, write him at info@nationalcenter.org. Please state if a letter is not for publication or if you prefer that it be published anonymously.
Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie on al Qaeda's Racial Slur and the Continuing Threat of Terrorism with Janet Parshall Monday - Listen Live
By David Almasi:
Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie recently spoke out against al Qaeda deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri for calling President-elect Barack Obama and Bush Administration Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell "house negroes" in a video posted on Islamist web sites.
Mychal will discuss the topic further and the ongoing threat of terrorism with syndicated talk radio host Janet Parshall on Monday, November at 4:15 pm eastern.
“Janet Parshall's America” can be heard on over 250 stations nationwide (click here to find a local station) and on XM "Family Radio" (channel 170). You can stream the show on the Internet or download a podcast (for a fee) by clicking here.
While no fan of Barack Obama, I am a proud American. I find this terrorist's remarks directed at our nation's incoming leader to be highly offensive...
Liberals fail to grasp the reality that Muslim extremists such as al-Zawahiri hate them just as much as they hate the rest of America. At the very least, his crazed diatribe should prove this very point. I hope it jolts the incoming administration into reality. Being President isn't like playing senator or being a community organizer - it is about protecting the American people. That cannot be done without a strong military and the backbone to make decisions that might be unpopular among his friends.
This post was written by National Center for Public Policy Research Executive Director David Almasi. To send comments to the author, write him at info@nationalcenter.org. Please state if a letter is not for publication or if you prefer that it be published anonymously.
Husband David has an op-ed in today's Washington Times as well as other papers on what a cap on greenhouse gas emissions would due to our economy.
An excerpt:
When our economic bus is teetering at the edge of a cliff, it's a bad time to throw on some extra weight.
Yet government-mandated restrictions on carbon emissions would do precisely that, adding enormous additional weight to an economy already reeling. This additional weight shouldn't just be thrown from the bus -- it should be thrown under it.
Most econometric studies agree that restricting greenhouse-gas emissions would slow our already sluggish economy.
A study by the National Association of Manufacturers projected that emissions caps similar to those rejected earlier this year by the U.S. Senate calling for a 63-percent cut in emissions by 2050, would reduce U.S. gross domestic product by up to $269 billion and cost 850,000 jobs by 2014.
The Heritage Foundation estimated such restrictions would result in cumulative GDP losses of up to $4.8 trillion and employment losses of more than 500,000 a year by 2030.
Other studies suggest smaller economic costs: Duke University's Nicholas Institute estimates a GDP loss of $245 billion by 2030 while the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates a GDP drop of $238 billion to $983 billion.
Sharp emissions restrictions would also push the costs of energy and other consumer products higher. According to a study conducted by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the restrictions could raise gasoline prices 29 percent, electricity prices 55 percent and natural-gas prices 15 percent by 2015.
The people most vulnerable to such price increases are the poor. A 2007 report by the Congressional Budget Office examining the costs of cutting carbon emissions just 15 percent noted that customers "would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households would." Indeed, the lowest quintile income group would pay nearly double what the highest quintile income group would, as a proportion of income, pay in increased energy costs.
And it appears that all this economic pain would be an utterly meaningless gesture. Patrick Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists, who is now with the Cato Institute, says reducing U.S. emissions 63 percent would prevent a mere 0.013 degrees Celsius in warming. With emissions from China, India and other developing nations growing at breakneck speed, even this modest benefit would be completely erased.
Some argue that we should undergo this pain anyway to set an example for others to follow. The European Union tried that and now, apparently, they're throwing in their collective recycled-material towel... Read it all here.
Project 21's Mychal Massie and Greg Parker are denouncing the offensive racial slur made by al Qaeda deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri against President-elect Barack Obama.
Project 21's Horace Cooper on C-Span Friday to Discuss Race Issues in Obama's America - Watch or Listen Live
By David Almasi:
Project 21 member and National Center board member Horace Cooper has been scheduled to discuss how the dynamic of race relations is changed by Barack Obama’s election to the presidency on C-Span's "Washington Journal" program Friday morning.
You can see Horace live at 8:00 am eastern on C-Span (please check your local cable listings for station). You can also watch or listen to it live from your computer by clicking here and selecting the format appropriate for your computer on the right-hand side of the page (choose the format to the right of the blue C-Span logo to watch or the black C-Span Radio logo to listen only).
C-Span Radio is broadcast in the Washington/Baltimore area at 90.1 FM and available nationwide on XM Channel 132.
Later in the day, the show can be seen on the “Washington Journal” web page.
This post was written by National Center for Public Policy Research Executive Director David Almasi. To send comments to the author, write him at info@nationalcenter.org. Please state if a letter is not for publication or if you prefer that it be published anonymously.
Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie on the Death of Tony Snow
Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie asked that we pass along his comments on behalf of Project 21 on the passing of former White House press secretary, columnist and Fox News Channel host Tony Snow this past Saturday:
America has lost a true patriot and is the poorer for it.
Tony Snow was the perfect embodiment of what a newsman should exemplify. A fighter to the end, while we mourn his passing, we applaud his victorious example.
Project 21 extends our most sincere condolences to his family, friends and the great nation he served selflessly.
Project 21 speaks for everyone at the National Center for Public Policy Research as well. Tony Snow was a great American, and he will be sorely missed. _____
Phil Truluck is today Executive Vice President of the Heritage Foundation. He is the right-hand man of Edwin J. (Ed) Feulner, Jr. In 1973 he worked under my supervision. Then as now he is one of the most able and tireless laborers for the cause I ever have known. That year he worked day and night on the liberal's pet cause of that era - namely, land use. Had the land use bill passed the federal government would have been able, in effect, to do away with private property.
Although others took credit for the defeat of that terrible bill, I can state without fear of contradiction that it was Truluck's work that was responsible for the outcome. It is true that this bill has not reared its ugly self for the past 35 years but no bad idea ever dies in Washington. The National Center for Public Policy Research has issued a new study which contends that the federal government has found a new way to restrict the use of private property. A total of 37 million acres throughout the nation is under the control of land trusts. The best known of these is the Nature Conservancy. Dana Joel Gattuso, a senior fellow at the National Center, is author of the report, "Conservation Easements: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly." It seems that the Conservancy approaches land-rich but cash-poor farmers. In return for donating their land for supposed conservation purposes, the land owners are provided with federal and state tax breaks provided they agree never to develop or use the land for anything other than farming or ranching.
But the next thing that most often happens is a land flip...
Paul ends the piece with a call upon Congress to hold hearings to expose the way conservation easements are being abused, with an eye toward amending the law to prevent these abuses.
Another 53 Major Organizations Warn Congress, Public About Clean Water Restoration Act
Following up on a letter signed by over 100 organizations and individuals last fall, the National Center for Public Policy Research is today releasing another coalition letter warning the public and the policymakers about the Oberstar/Feingold Clean Water Restoration Act.
CWRA is to be the focus of hearings in the Senate and House on April 9 and 16, respectively. We can be sure that the very liberal Senator Barbara Boxer (D-MN), and the bill's main sponsor, Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), the chairmen of the committees holding the hearings, will examine the bill quite objectively. (Not.)
More about the letters, and links to the letters, including a list of signers:
Representatives of 53 Organizations Warn Congress, Public about Oberstar/Feingold Clean Water Restoration Act
Farm Bureaus, Manufacturers, Sportsmen, Taxpayer Advocates, Think-Tanks and Others Express Concern About Expansion of Federal Power
Washington, D.C. - A letter signed by representatives of over 53 organizations expressing grave concerns about the Oberstar/Feingold Clean Water Restoration Act, or CWRA, is being delivered to Congress this week.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, chaired by Barbara Boxer (D-CA), has scheduled a hearing on CWRA for April 9. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, chaired by CWRA sponsor James Oberstar (D-MN), has a hearing scheduled April 16.
The letter says CWRA sponsors are wrong in claiming CWRA would restore the original intent of the 1972 Clean Water Act. Instead, the letter says, CWRA would greatly expand its scope.
The letter is signed by representatives of nineteen state farm bureaus. Other organizations with representatives signing include the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the Public Lands Council, the National Association of Wheat Growers, the Family Farm Alliance, the Family Water Alliance, the National Water Resources Association, the Blue Ribbon Coalition, the Alabama Farmers Federation, the Citizens Alliance for Responsible Energy, the California Land Institute, and very many public policy advocacy groups and think-tanks.
"The Clean Water Restoration Act would not restore the original intent of the Clean Water Act, but significantly expand it. It would expand federal clean water regulations to often dry land by re-defining dry lake beds, intermittent streams and, possibly, even tiny backyard fish ponds as 'waters of the United States,'" said David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, which organized the letter. "This expansive federal power goes far beyond what Congress intended when it passed the original Clean Water Act in 1972."
The letter also says CWRA would increase confusion within the already highly-litigated question of what waters are subject to regulation. Although the bill itself greatly expands federal power, as Congress' authority to regulate waters rests on the Commerce Clause, those waters that have no impact on interstate commerce would be immune from the authority of the Act. Knowing which waters meet the Commerce Clause test could be nearly impossible for the average landowner, however. Many cases would be settled only after expensive and protracted litigation.
"Rather than eliminate the ambiguity of the original law, CWRA would codify it. Instead of providing clear, predictable standards of regulation, CWRA would punt these decisions to the courts," said Ridenour.
This letter follows another letter, signed by 100 conservationists, family advocacy groups, civil rights leaders, sportsmen organizations, seniors advocates, think-tanks and taxpayer action groups in October 2007, expressing nearly identical concerns about CWRA. As hearings in the House and Senate about CWRA neared, this second letter was organized in response to demand from organizations concerned that the public, and many legislators, remain unaware of serious problems within this legislation.
The letter and list of signers is available online here (pdf). The October letter can be found here (pdf).
The National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-profit, non-partisan educational foundation based in Washington, D.C, now in its 26th year.
Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie Named "Conservative Man of the Year"
Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie will receive the "Conservative Man of the Year" Award from the Suffolk County, New York Conservative Party on April 10.
Here's what David Almasi had to say: "The members and staff of Project 21 are extremely proud of Mychal. Mychal has earned more than his fair share of criticism from the left for daring to speak his mind and promoting the diversity of opinion among black Americans that is largely overlooked in the media. It is high time for him to be congratulated for it."
Fox News Reports on New Anti-Global Warming Gas Tax Poll
Fox News' William La Jeunesse has reported several stories on the National Center for Public Policy Research's just-released poll measuring the public's willingness to pay more for gasoline to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
The clip above is one that appeared on the Fox Report with Shepherd Smith on March 19. Click the picture to view the clip with poll graphics or read the transcrip below:
Michigan Congressman Wants 50-Cent Tax Hike on Every Gallon of Gas
A Michigan congressman wants to put a 50-cent tax on every gallon of gasoline to try to cut back on Americans' consumption.
Polls show that a majority of Americans support policies that would reduce greenhouse gases. But when it comes to paying for it, it's a different story.
Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., wants to help cut consumption with a gas tax but some don't agree with the idea, according to a new poll by the National Center for Public Policy Research.
The poll, scheduled to be released on Thursday, shows 48 percent don't support paying even a penny more, 28 percent would pay up to 50 cents more, 10 percent would pay more than 50 cents and 8 percent would pay more than a dollar.
"I don't want to pay more, I don't think anyone wants to," said Karen Deacon, a motorist.
"I think that wouldn't make any sense," said Frankie Hoe, a motorist. "Ugh ... who's making the money from all this and where is that money going? Is it going to go green? I don't see any green things anywhere."
The automobile is the nation's biggest polluter; Americans use more gas than the next 20 countries combined.
Some environmentalists and economists say pain at the pump may be bad for Americans, but good medicine for a sick planet.
But others say it wouldn't change much. Even if Americans abandoned their cars, global emissions would fall by less than one percent.
"A tax on gas is a way to reduce dependence on import oil, reduce traffic congrestion and reduce carbon emissions," said Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute.
The Earth Policy Institute proposes raising the gas tax 30 cents per gallon each year over a decade and offset with a reduction of income taxes, Brown said.
David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, said the proposal wouldn't help long term.
"I think when you are talking about raising gas prices, there may be short-term reduction, put off vacations, but bottom line is over long term, that isn't going to have much of an effect," Ridenour said.
While Dingell's idea will likely lie dormant until after the 2008 election, the idea of carbon taxes is not. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain all support some type of system that either directly or indirectly will raise prices to penalize polluters.
CNN's O'Brien Telepathic - Or Conspiring to Mislead?
From David Ridenour:
CNN's Miles O'Brien recently asserted that the Heartland Institute "desperately wants us to believe" there's a conspiracy to distort information about global warming.
O'Brien said so in his Tuesday story about the Chicago-based group's March 2-4 international global warming conference held in New York.
The trouble is, no one from the Heartland Institute said anything about a conspiracy. Without the power of telepathy, O'Brien would have no way of knowing what Heartland Institute wants.
So why did O'Brien have conspiracy on his mind?
Perhaps because O'Brien was busy distorting the global warming debate at the very time he was mocking this straw man of his own creation.
For example, O'Brien cited a Yale University poll showing that an overwhelming number of Americans - 83% -- are concerned about global warming.
To find the poll, O'Brien had to be pretty creative.
For one thing, he had to track down a poll more than a year old while skipping over other more recent ones, including another Yale poll just last September, showing less concern over global warming. Yale's September poll found 62% of respondents believe urgent action on global warming is needed and only 48% believe that most scientists agree that global warming is occurring.
O'Brien also had to be creative in finding a global warming poll that wasn't weighted to reflect the actual composition of the population. Respondents were screened for age to ensure they were 18 years of age, but nothing else.
O'Brien didn't mention that 71% of those polled also indicated that they are "often interested in theories," that 67% "like to lead others," that 26% have already purchased a vehicles getting 35 mpg or more (yet the average fleet mpg is miraculously still 20.2 mpg); and that 66% had a negative view of the overall state of the environment.
Little wonder than 83% of those polled were concerned about global warming!
Seventy-one percent of those respondents, by the way, self-ided themselves as "intellectual."
Must have been an interesting list they polled.
Finally, O'Brien fails to note that those expressing concern about global warming included people concerned about natural global warming, too. At issue is not all global warming, but anthropogenic - human influenced - global warming.
The poll isn't the only place where O'Brien misled.
He cites Dan Fagin, a journalism teacher at New York University, saying that "skeptics have changed their tune as evidence started stacking up against them" - as though changing ones views as new evidence emerges is an indication of a character flaw.
It is, in fact, an indication of integrity.
Scientists on both sides of the global warming debate - although not enough - have refined their projections and analyses as data has improved and their understanding of the climate increased. That's part of the scientific method.
O'Brien then cited Fagin again, saying, "A decade ago they denied global warming even existed."
Absurd. No one suggested anything of the kind as everyone recognizes that global warming is what makes all life on our planet possible.
The Heartland Institute showed no sign of being "desperate" to prove a conspiracy to misrepresent global warming information.
But after seeing O'Brien's report, perhaps it should be.
As noted the other day, Project 21 member Kevin Martin led the D.C. Chapter of Free Republic in a rally of support for armed forces recruiters in Washington, D.C. Monday.
The rally was in response to an anti-war rally at the same location by some hooligans who described their activities this way:
... After many previous protests had found the 14th st recruiter "closed" at 5PM, Funk the War found them open, and the door unlocked at nearer to 6Pm and promptly exploited the situation by demonstrating to them first hand how an occupying force behaves.
After a loud commotion inside while outnumbered cops watched, recruiters finally managed to get protesters to leave-but not before literature and full-body length cardboard displays in the street window area were destroyed. In addition, hundreds more "Funk the War" stickers were plastered all over just about everything that would take them. By the time everyone was out it looked like a tornado had swept through the lobby.
One recruiter tried to grab an activist but found himself overpowered by SDS's superior strength and numbers and had no choice but to give up!
Project 21 Member to Lead D.C. Demonstration Monday Supporting Armed Forces Recruiters
From David Almasi:
On February 15, anti-war protestors affiliated with the rejuvenated Students for a Democratic Society marched through Washington, D.C.'s evening rush hour. When they found the local armed forces recruiting station open, the protestors stormed the office and trashed it. The D.C. Police chose not to intervene.
This coming Monday, Project 21 Kevin Martin and members of the D.C. chapter of Free Republic are holding their own demonstration outside of the recruiting office in support of the armed forces and all they do to protect our freedom here and abroad.
Here are the details for those who would like to attend:
Monday, February 25 3pm-6pm 1099 14th Street NW (at L Street NW) Washington, D.C.
If you are attending this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference, please be sure to say hello to Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli and National Center Senior Fellow Tom Borelli at the DemandDebate table in the CPAC exhibit hall. They will have National Center for Public Policy Research and Project 21 publications available, including free copies of the latest edition of Shattered Dreams.
Critics of Global Warming Agenda are Motivated by a Love of Freedom, Borelli Says
From David Almasi:
Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli recently wrote a New Visions Commentary on global warming politics that has been re-posted all over the Internet, including Townhall.com, GOPUSA.com and ChronWatch, to name just a few.
Here is a sample of Deneen's commentary:
Despite the numerous flaws and ambiguities in trying to link human behavior and global warming, activists and their allies in government use emotion and alarmism to make their case. They are seeking to cut off any reasonable debate and silence their critics by saying these people are motivated by corporate and personal greed and don't care about pollution. That, however, is hardly the case.
Critics of the global warming agenda are motivated instead by a love of freedom and civil liberties. They want a discussion based on logic and facts that will address any problems without depriving us of liberty and personal choice. They do not want to sacrifice our way of life based on fears of an unproven theory.
New Vision Commentary op-eds by Deneen and other Project 21 members are available online at the National Center for Public Policy Research website here. _____
Australia's John Howard a Global Warming Victim? No.
A post by Joseph Romm published by the Climate Progress Blog (a project of the Center for American Progress) and the environmentalist Grist Blog is claiming Australian Prime Minister John Howard lost his re-election bid because of his stand on global warming:
Australian denier bites the dust — literally
Global warming takes down its first major political victim:
“Conservative Prime Minister John Howard suffered a humiliating defeat Saturday at the hands of the left-leaning opposition, whose leader has promised to immediately sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.”
Why the stunning loss? A key reason was Howard’s “head in the sand dust” response to the country’s brutal once-in-a-thousand year drought. As the UK’s Independent reported in April:
… few scientists dispute the part played by climate change, which is making Australia hotter and drier….. Until a few months ago, Mr Howard and his ministers pooh-poohed the climate-change doomsayers....
Not for the first time, climate alarmists see things as they wish they were, and not as they are.
Howard lost for many reasons far more "key" than Howard's skepticism about the need for the environmental movement's prescriptions for fighting climate change. These reasons include:
Howard had already been prime minister 11 1/2 years (he was running for his fifth term), and is 68 years old to his opponent's more youthful 50.
Many voters took Australia's strong economy -- possibly Howard's greatest achievement -- for granted, as Australia has enjoyed 17 straight years of economic growth.
The Labor Party candidate, Kevin Rudd, campaigned as a strong fiscal conservative, and endorsed very many of Howard's economic policies, leading voters to believe Rudd as new prime minister would continue Howard's economic policy achievements.
Despite a good economic record overall, Howard's Liberal Party was blamed for a recent unpopular rise in interest rates.
The Labor Party ran a celebrity against Howard in his local parliamentary race in New South Wales, forcing him to campaign there frequently, taking his time away from campaigning in marginal districts.
A 2005 industrial relations reform called "Work Choices" was unpopular in some quarters, particularly among organized labor.
A late-breaking scandal took place, in which Liberal Party activists were caught handing out fake Labor Party brochures supporting Islamic terrorists.
The war in Iraq, in which Howard was a steadfast American ally.
Think Progress Slams Conservative Bloggers for Citing a Mere Weatherman on Climate Issues, Yet It Cites a Politician Over a Climatologist
The ridiculous Think Progress is slamming John Coleman for expressing his opinion on climate change because -- get this -- Coleman is a just a weatherman:
The conservative blogosphere is pushing Coleman’s junk science today. Matt Drudge links to NewsBusters’ “marvelous” take on Coleman this morning. Red State [sic], Qando [sic], Sister Toldjah, and the Free Republic also join in by approvingly linking to Coleman’s piece.
The right wing should check Coleman’s credentials before touting his “scientific” work. As Coleman admits, his “expertise” is in weather — not climate change science. In fact, he “has been a TV weatherman since he was a freshman in college in 1953.”
Think Progress doesn't believe a mere "weatherman" should speak his mind on climate, but...
...as recently as November 5, Think Progress promoted the climate views of a politician over those of a bona fide climatologist:
This morning, former vice president Al Gore appeared on NBC’s Today Show to talk about global warming. Host Meredith Vieira brought up a Nov. 1 Wall Street Journal op-ed by climate skeptic John Christy, a former member of the IPCC. In the op-ed, Christy wrote, “I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the activity we see.”
When Vieira asked about the op-ed, Gore noted that Christy “no longer belongs to the IPCC” and is “way outside the scientific consensus.” He also sharply criticized the media for giving so much air time to such climate skeptics...
As Gore noted, scientists such as Christy are outliers, yet the media continue to give them an overblown amount of airtime. Last month, for example, Colorado State University professor Dr. William Gray sharply criticized Gore, saying that he is “brainwashing our children” on global warming.
Christy has a B.A. in mathematics and an M.S. and Ph.D. in atmospheric sciences. Gore earned a degree in government and then attended divinity school and law school.
If conservative bloggers are foolish for citing a mere weatherman on climate issues, what does that make a website that cites a politician?
The headline for the Think Progress piece, by the way, is "Right Wing Trumpets Global Warming Denial Of Discredited ‘TV Weatherman.'" When was Coleman "discredited"?
I'm wondering if the Think Progress staff just made that part up.
Full Disclosure: I cited meterologist John Coleman's remarks yesterday, and would do it again. _____
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has a new book out, "A Contract with the Earth," which, Publishers Weekly says, calls for "businessmen and conservationists to form 'compatible partnerships'" on the environment.
"Compatible partnerships" between business and "conservationists" usually run along the lines of businesses forking over loads of cash to big-government environmental organizations in exchange for the perception that their company will be put slightly lower on Big Green's hit list.
I concede that once in a while the motive is different -- sometimes businesses see a way to profit from new regulations, so they sincerely support Big Green's efforts to get us to pay for them. That sort of sincerity we can do without.
At a conservative environmental policy meeting in 1996 a list of complaints on environmental issues were raised about then-Speaker Gingrich. The list, which I believe provides some context for Gingrich's book tour, was published in a contemporaneous National Center newsletter article under the apt title, "Conservatives Ponder What to Do When the GOP House Speaker is on the Other Side":
...Among the policy disagreements conservatives have with the Speaker:
Gingrich supported and fought to protect Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt's National Biological Service, a new expansion of the federal government's ability to target private property for government acquisition;
Gingrich has given the handful of environmental establishment Republicans veto power over all environmental legislation by establishing a House Task Force on the Environment to decide what environmental legislation will and will not be voted on in the House and then stacking the task force with members who disagree with conservatives on environmental issues;
Gingrich supports creation of federal Heritage Areas, a proposal that would, if approved, use federal tax dollars to empower local governments to control local property at the expense of local property owners;
In published interviews Gingrich has implied that conservatives and rural Westerners need to "grow" [read: become more liberal] on environmental issues;
Gingrich urged Bob Dole to drop his efforts to pass a property rights bill to compensate Americans if regulations reduce the value of their property by one-third or more, despite public opinion polls showing that some 70% of the American people (66% according to a Times-Mirror poll and 72% according to a Polling Company survey) support such legislation. Property rights advocates believe such legislation will eventually pass the Congress if Members of Congress are forced to go on the record as for or against it;
Gingrich frequently confers with left-wing environmentalists but declines to extend the same courtesy to conservatives on the same issues;
Gingrich co-sponsored a bill to create a National Institute on the Environment, which inevitably would devolve into yet another government-funded body requiring the discovery of new environmental risks to justify its existence;
Gingrich opposes opening Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration, even though this exploration is environmentally-safe and is vital to the economy of Native residents such as Inupiat Eskimos;
Gingrich supports regulation even when scientific evidence of a need for the regulation is weak. For instance, Gingrich has distanced himself publicly from conservative Congressmen, such as House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, who advocate lifting environmental regulations in cases where the evidence that the regulations help the environment is weak.
(As a side note, in light of the California fires, it is interesting to read the first article in that same newsletter, which describes the environmental movement's ardent opposition to a bill by Senator Larry Craig to address "high risk" forests, and decribes conservatives discussing "with some frustration the environmentalist movement's ability to, as one participant put it, 'Lie at will and never get caught at it.'")
One of the things we tried very hard to do back then was to get a meeting with then-Speaker Gingrich to discuss these concerns. He not only wouldn't grant one, but his staff was arrogant and rude in turning down the requests. No polite "he's love to but he's so very busy" brush-offs for them, no sir. They wanted the contempt to show.
Message received.
Go here for even more reasons to doubt Newt Gingrich is an honest broker between big-government environmental organizations and mainstream conservatives.
I'll buy the book and read it, thereby giving Newt Gingrich a bigger benefit of the doubt on environmental issues than he ever gave us. You'll hear from me again about this, later. _____
In Which We Are Condemned As Big-Spending Quasi-Liberals (on SCHIP, No Less)
Dale Franks at QandO is bitterly complaining about my complaint that the Democrat Congressional leadership and its handful of Republican allies have a provision in their SCHIP expansion bill forbidding SCHIP families from making use of FSAs and MSAs offered by employers, even if such employer-based plans meet the families' needs in the most economical manner.
I think Franks is a bit overheated, and consider his allegation that the view I summarize above means my colleagues and I advocate more government spending to be ludicrious, but judge what he wrote for yourself:
So, that's the ground they've chosen to die on. SCHIP must be allowed to subsidize MSAs and the like.
No complaints about a massive expansion of the program. In effect, it's a complaint that the program doesn't go far enough, so that it covers their preferred health care reform, too.
First, this is just silly. You will never, ever win against the Democrats by claiming that they're too stingy with the people's money, or that their benefit programs aren't far-reaching enough. Quite apart from the fact that no one will really believe you, the simple response is that the Democrats actually want to dole out "free" government health care to everybody, and it's the Republicans that are opposed to it. So, this email embodies a stupid tactic.
Second, I look at this stuff, and I think, "The battle's over. We will never stop the expansion of government." Even "conservatives" can no longer find it in themselves to offer up a principled stand against an expansion of SCHIP.
It'd be easier on everyone if we just bypassed the next fifteen years, and proceeded directly to mailing in 90% of our paychecks to the government, and simply be done with it.
The remaining 10%, of course, we can keep, and use to blow on hats, or whatever other little trinkets we've decided to trade in our liberty for.
I posted a response in Q and O's comments:
"No complaints about a massive expansion of the program"? "Even 'conservatives' can no longer find it in themselves to offer up a principled stand against an expansion of SCHIP"?
I take it you did not familarize yourself with our body of work on SCHIP, and simply assumed we hadn't said the things you are condemning us for not saying.
And there's our SCHIP website, which contains nothing except principled stands against an expansion of SCHIP (except the poll, which had a 'no expansion' result until DailyKos and Democratic Underground told their followers to go vote in it).
The argument in our press release is that despite the Democratic leadership's claim that its members respect families like the Frosts, they really don't trust them at all. That's a far cry from "claiming that they're too stingy with the people's money, or that their benefit programs aren't far-reaching enough."
By the way, taking FSA and MSA options out of SCHIP wouldn't save taxpayers' money. Recipients who want these options wouldn't be thrown off the dole. They's just get a more government-laden, and quite likely more expensive to the taxpayers, form of welfare.
The SCHIP/Frost Affair Continues; Paul Krugman Calls Me a Busybody
I now have the dubious, but hardly unique, distinction of being the subject of an error-filled essay by the New York Times' infamous Paul Krugman.
Subject: The SCHIP/Graeme Frost affair and whether adults on public assistance have a right to withhold financial information about themselves from taxpayers.
Krugman believes a column I had published on TownHall last Thursday is evidence that "conservatives want those in need to be dependent on the charity of people who will seek to dictate their behavior."
He couldn't be more wrong. Conservatives actually want those in need to not be in need. It's a little odd that after decades of liberals accusing conservatives of not being willing to fund welfare because we're cheap skinflints, Krugman is accusing us of wanting to fund it so we can use it to tell people on public assistance what to do.
In addition to being a bit confused, Krugman seemingly doesn't do original research, and apparently has a prediliction for inaccurate secondary sources. He attributed my busybodiness to a report by a left-wing blogger called Digby, who wrote:
Today, Amy Ridenour of Townhall is touting the idea that Michele Malkin[sic] has the right to dig into every private detail of your life if you take any money from the government. Watch out social security recipients. Watch out veterans. She's going to be putting all your personal information on the internet if you open your mouth in a way she doesn't approve. You give up your right to privacy --- even from shrieking harpy bloggers --- if you receive any money from the taxpayers. In fact, Amy Ridenour and Michele Malkin [sic] personally own you.
Do people on the dole have a reasonable expectation of privacy vis-à-vis their financial affairs?
No.
That question, though not always my answer, is coming up frequently as defenders of the Democratic Party's $35 billion SCHIP expansion proposal condemn bloggers and talk show hosts, including Rush Limbaugh, who have examined the statement penned by aides to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and delivered as the official Democratic Party rebuttal to President Bush's weekly radio address by 12-year-old Graeme Frost, that the State Childrens Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is for "families like mine."
The questioners' question: If Graeme Frost's family isn't all that low-income, then maybe the SCHIP program doesn't need to be expanded by $35 billion to cover millions of extra families with even higher incomes than the Frosts apparently have.
Rather than address the core question, some say it is inappropriate even to consider the Frost family's circumstances, even if the people doing the considering are helping the Frosts raise their kids. This assumption reverses a thousand years of philanthropic practice.
Throughout history, charity has typically been given out voluntarily and to people whose circumstances were directly known to the donor. Donors usually knew, or could learn, if a recipient genuinely couldn't meet his own needs. As population growth and industrialization led to fewer people living in small towns, charity grew more impersonal. Then the growth of the welfare state made “charity” mandatory. And finally, hastened along by certain wrong-headed Supreme Court decisions, helped by activism by welfare advocacy lobbyists, an assumption developed that people who receive handouts are due privacy along with the help.
The obligation to be self-sufficient when possible had been reversed: Now the self-sufficient are obligated to assist those who are not, and it is considered bad form for the donor to question if the charity is misplaced.
There's more involved in the Frost case, of course, namely the fact that the family itself put its financial condition in the public square by agreeing to serve as the public face of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's $35 billion public health expansion. Once you let your son go on a national broadcast to ask Americans to consider your financial situation, you ought not be surprised if a few of your fellow Americans do just that...
See Michelle Malkin's name in there anywhere? Me, neither.
Paul Krugman, however, calls Digby "one of the best writers you’ll ever encounter, on or off the Internet."
Wrong again, Krugman. She's not even funny or a decent stylist, one of which at least one ought to expect from a "best writer" who can't get facts right.
Krugman then purports to describe me and this organization. The one paragraph he devotes to this contains five errors of fact -- an average of one error every 20.6 words. Pretty high error rate, though probably no record for Krugman.
Krugman claims he took the paragraph from his new book, "Error-Filled Liberal,"* which, if true, means that not only did the New York Times publish a piece with an error every 20.6 words, but a major publisher, W.W. Norton and Company, did, too.
Why don't major newspapers and publishers use fact-checkers?
* Note: I may have misstated the title of Krugman's new book a little. The actual title is "Do Liberals have a Conscience?" No, wait, that's not quite right, either... _____
Peyton Knight approves of some of Al Gore’s advice to President Bush:
At former President Clinton's annual "Global Clinton Initiative" summit Thursday, Al Gore called on President Bush to be more like the Gipper. Gore said:
I... call on President Bush to follow President Reagan's example and listen to those among his advisers who know that we need to have binding reductions in CO2.
Gore was trying to employ Reagan's support for protecting the ozone layer in an effort to nudge Bush toward supporting energy restrictions.
Well, the former veep and newest member of the Reagan fan club has some catch-up reading to do. Reagan knew a thing or two about energy policy, seeing as his predecessor had a disastrous one. As such, when Reagan officially announced his candidacy for President in 1979, he assessed energy policy pretty specifically - and pretty specifically repudiated the Gore approach. According to Reagan:
It is no program simply to say, "Use less energy." Of course waste must be eliminated and efficiently promoted, but for the government simply to tell people to conserve is not an energy policy. At best it means we will run out of energy a little more slowly. But a day will come when the lights will dim and the wheels of industry will turn more slowly and finally stop. As President I will not endorse any course which has this as its principal objective.
We need more energy and that means diversifying our sources of supply away from the OPEC countries...
The answer, obvious to anyone except those in the administration it seems, is more domestic production of oil and gas. We must also have wider use of nuclear power within strict safety rules, of course. There must be more spending by the energy industries on research and development of substitutes for fossil fuels.
In years to come solar energy may provide much of the answer but for the next two or three decades we must do such things as master the chemistry of coal. Putting the market system to work for these objectives is an essential first step for their achievement. Additional multi-billion-dollar federal bureaus and programs are not the answer...
It is not government's function to allocate fuel or impose unnecessary restrictions on the marketplace.
Let's see. Invest in new technology, promote domestic production of oil and gas, increase nuclear power and refuse to restrict Americans' energy supply. Sounds about right to me.
I don't want to post anything else on the blog this evening until I note with sadness the death of John Berthoud.
John's death was announced earlier today by the National Taxpayers Union, which John led for the last 11 years.
I did not know John well, but I knew him for many years. He was always willing to lend a hand; often, he was one of the very first to volunteer to assist coalition efforts. His name came up in office conversations often. I do not recall hearing a negative word about him; not even once.
John's work made America a better place. He will be missed. _____
Towards the end of the interview, I asked McCain about legislation recently proposed in the House that would use federal money to create a multistate land use planning body for a wide (and apparently unspecified) swath of land in four states where civil war battle fields and other historic landmarks are located ("The Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area Act") . Some property rights advocates fear that this legislation would limit private property rights while giving environmentalists and wealthy land owners extraordinary power to thwart construction of all but the most expensive houses and estates in the Virginia segment of the "corridor."
Senator McCain responded that, as a general matter, he favors resolving these kinds of matters cooperatively at the state and local level, and with respect for private property rights. Since this particular matter involves multiple states, he seemed receptive to the idea of a voluntary interstate compact.
It is nice to see politicians being asked about this. Next maybe we'll see Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) being asked why he arranged for the lobbying entity for JTHG to receive federal dollars via earmark to lobby for its own power-grab. (They'll argue it was for a scenic byway, but money is fungible, and how many groups -- outside of Alaska, that is -- receive a million-dollar federal grant before they have even been incorporated?I well remember the morning husband David discovered this earmark while doing research at the kitchen table in his PJs while simultaneously watching the children. "Pajamas media" -- at work. _____
That's the question CNBC asked Wednesday, as Senior Fellow Tom Borelli took to the airwaves to discuss the letter 70 organizations sent to Caterpillar, asking CEO James Owens to withdraw the corporation from the United States Climate Action Partnership lobbying campaign in favor of new and costly "cap and trade" energy-restriction regulations.
Tom, who in a separate capacity serves as portfolio manager of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, warned that Caterpillar is "going to hurt their profits" and "harm the U.S. economy... by going green, they are turning their customers red."
Tyson Slocum of Ralph Nader's Public Citizen joined the program to counter Tom, largely by arguing, without offering a shred of evidence, that it is "smart business" for major U.S. corporations to help left-wing environmentalists lobby Congress for restrictions on their own activities.
Karl Marx once said, "The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope."
Marx was wrong. The last capitalist to be hanged shall be the one who donated the rope, and then lobbied for his own hanging.
Mr. Slocum described environmentalism's goals very well, though, when he admitted: "...the entire economy is going to have to be focused on adjusting to regulations that deal with climate change."
Global Warming Alarmism and Religion - Together at Last?
From Peyton Knight:
This is a summary report from last Thursday's Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing titled, "An Examination of the Views of Religious Organizations Regarding Global Warming."
In her opening statement, committee chairman Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said that "Evangelical Christians, Catholics, African Methodist Episcopals, Jews, mainline Protestant Christians, and many other people of faith see the need for action on global warming as a moral, ethic
Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie and Fellow Deneen Borelli and Project 21 members Lisa Fritsch, Rich Holt, Richard Fair and Edmund Peterson are participating in a town hall-style edition of the "Glenn Beck" show airing on the Fox News Channel at 5:00 PM eastern today, Friday, November 13.
Project 21 member Joe Hicks is scheduled to appear on CNN HLN (Headline News) to discuss the myth that racial animosity is fueling opposition to the policies pushed by the Obama White House.
House Republicans will introduce a health care bill tomorrow. 
Apparently dissatisfied with the United States paying a full 22 percent of the expenses of the ridiculously wasteful and notoriously corrupt United Nations, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon 
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=f5421d2b-88b5-4332-aa7d-582394ff561d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=a8ab5926-ab0d-41df-8872-a993e8b99f53)
