"Black lives [are] mattering, but only in a political context, when they can be exploited...," says Project 21's Joe Hicks, appearing with radio host Tommy "TJ" Sotomayor on Jamie Glazov's "The Glazov Gang."
Do watch it all.
The official blog of the National Center for Public Policy Research, covering news, current events and public policy from a conservative, free-market and pro-Constitution perspective.
20 F Street NW, Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20001
Fax (301) 498-1301
"Black lives [are] mattering, but only in a political context, when they can be exploited...," says Project 21's Joe Hicks, appearing with radio host Tommy "TJ" Sotomayor on Jamie Glazov's "The Glazov Gang."
Do watch it all.
Here's excerpts from the action from Horace's appearance last night, with guest host Roger Lodge, Counterterrorism Expert Aaron Cohen, Clinical Psychologist Judy Ho, Civil Rights Attorney Lisa Bloom, and Criminal Investigator Danine Manette:
LODGE: Let me bring Horace in here. Horace, if we're going to point any fingers here, where should we be pointing them?***
HORACE COOPER, CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR: Well, we shouldn't start with mental illness. We shouldn't start with saying when someone does things that I wouldn't do or that I don't comprehend, the best explanation must be mental illness.
How about let's start with hate. It's a fact that the Southern Poverty Law Center lists the organization that he's a member of as a hate group, a racist, separatist hate group, and these organizations and these individuals are walking among many of us, and they are saying many of the hateful rhetoric that we see in this video. And others say, "Oh, they just have a difference of opinion."
We're going to have to start challenging the hate rhetoric, and we're going to have to start expecting people that they are not going to be able to assimilate into the rest of society while they espouse these hateful concepts.
COOPER: ...Mostly political correctness prevents us from having a serious conversation about the bad behavior and the hate rhetoric.
Too many people have accepted the premise that the only hate and the only racism can from white America and that it should be ignored and it shouldn't be given much consideration.
We all should be looking at Martin Luther King's idea that we're all going to be judged not by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character. This individual demonstrated the very kinds of commentary postings, et cetera. His name change. Everything he was doing was signaling he was part of the hateful rhetoric that is often associated with a lot of this discussion about police officers...
COOPER: First of all, let's be clear. Just this last week, someone in a well-developed European nation took a truck and killed nearly a hundred people without having to have access to a firearm. The truth of the matter is, hateful activity will allow people to do a number of destructive things.
COOPER: Well, I'm troubled but I'm actually troubled as part of this conversation. I believe that we ought to focus on data points. And it was just said that two shooters who were veterans must imply that there is a problem with our veterans and their likelihood of committing these kinds of dangerous crimes.
There's absolutely the opposite evidence the data shows. The NIH, the V.A., the Department of Justice shows that our veterans are actuallysubstantially less likely to engage in violence when they return than the general population.
So I don't want the conversation to go in this direction that somehow implies that the great people who serve and protect our nation are somehow at risk when they come back. This is similar to the lie that's being put forward about our law enforcement community.
JUDY HO, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: Well, you know, there's certainly a lot of other warning signs about the person, and as human beings, we want to categorize. We want to make sense of things and that's why there are these associations with the fact that he has veteran status with the fact that maybe he is a member of the sovereign state, and something that's more self-proclaimed, but I think we're missing the main issue here.
The main issue is he has really said multiple times in broadcasts such as this one that's playing in the background right now, that he is an independent thinker. These are ideas of his own. And for whatever reason through whatever influences he has, he has come to believe the things he
did that led to these issues. So where were the people to identify these problems in the first place? Where were the people when he was growing, when he was a teenager and he possibly was showing some warning signs?
LODGE: Well here's what the FBI said in the bulletin way back in 2011. "The FBI considers sovereign citizen extremists as comprising a domestic terrorist movement that scattered across the United States has existed for decades." Horace, are sovereign citizens terrorists, yes or no?
COOPER: Yes. And in fact, I agree with the doctor. We should be looking at the people who've interfaced with this individual. The people that are approving his social media functions. When you're involved in a group like this that's clearly a terrorist organization, people around you should be rejecting that behavior, not either ignoring it or affirming.
LODGE: Baton Rouge cop killer Gavin Long was a veteran of the U.S. Military just like Micah Johnson who shot and killed five officers in Dallas 10 days earlier. Tonight, some are blaming their deadly actions on the lack of mental health care available to our veterans. I'm Roger Lodgeback with Lisa, Aaron, Horace, and Judy.
Horace, could this police killings have been prevented in we took better care of our vets?
COOPER: We should take better care of our vets. We should have a national conversation about the importance of improving our mental health treatment and access, but to simply look at the evil that these men perpetrated and assume that treatment would have addressed this issue, I think takes us off course and does a disservice.
These were also men. Are we to believe that merely being men puts you in the category of being a risk factor for shooting up the community? They were black.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Certainly it does.
COOPER: Does it mean that that's a risk factor?
When you start looking at these simplistic associations, you get away from the reality that there were unique activities that these individuals were exhibiting that were useful for people if they were paying attention. And I don't blame the FBI. I am talking about their neighbors. I am talking
about their employers. I am talking about the people that followed them on social media. Those individuals should have been saying, "This is unacceptable."
COOPER: We don't have enough data points. If we want to have a conversation about the Veteran Affairs Program and PTSD, sign me up because you can look and see the program is broken. That's not the issue. The question is, whether that was a factor here. And we don't have the evidence. In fact, the evidence suggests overwhelmingly that our returning vets are not the likely threat to our community or to our law enforcement officers.
COOPER: Not true. Let me finish. Let me finish.
LODGE: Finish up Horace:
COOPER: Since that's not the case, we ought to be focusing on what the triggers are that led to this problem so that then we can focus on prevention.
LODGE: Lisa, quickly.
BLOOM: Well NBCNews.com posted a pretty thorough study that vets who were in combat do have a significantly higher chance of being involved...
COOPER: Not true.
BLOOM: ...in violent crime. Now of course, the majority do not.
COOPER: It is not true.
BLOOM: But we can't ignore -- now, I'm talking. But we can't ignore the data they come home with PTSD and those combat vets who have PTSD are more likely to engage in violent crime. And we all agree we need to give them the mental health services that they are entitled to after going overseas and serving our country an putting our lives at risk. That's the least we can do.
COOPER: Not true.
If I can find a link to the video, I'll post it.Addendum: Horace Cooper will appear on the Dr. Drew show again on Thursday, July 21 to continue the conversation begun in the show described in this blog post. The show runs from 7-8 PM Eastern.
Project 21's Joe R. Hicks has been quoted extensively on TV and radio in recent days. Here's an example of an appearance that got a lot of attention - Joe on the Fox News Channel's The Kelly File on July 11.
"Last week -- last week, three people were walking out a liquor store in San Bernardino -- people are familiar with San Bernardino because that's where the massacre took place. Two black men and a 9-year- old boy walking out of a liquor store mowed down by a black suspect. Where was Black Lives Matter? Did you guys mobilize in San Bernardino?"
Joe tells us there's no end in sight for this nation's war on police officers, thanks to "a nearly endless number of black men... [with] victimization fantasies."
"Enough with the false claims of the race-obsessed protesters," Joe says. "It is past the time for truth telling about who the real racists are in this society, and this starts by putting the Black Lives Matter activists under the heat lamp."
Here are Joe's comments at greater length:
This weekend America awoke to three more dead police officers, the latest in the nation's war on cops - a war with no real end in sight. There is no end in sight because there is a nearly endless number of black men residing this nation's black communities who have similar victimization fantasies as Micah Xavier Johnson did, the Dallas cop-killer, or Gavin Eugene Long, a black man who traveled all the way from Kansas City, Missouri, to Baton Rouge, Louisiana, just to kill as many cops as he could. Like ISIS has inspiring lone-wolf mass killers worldwide, has the Black Lives matter Movement similarly inspired the horrific acts of these black cop-killers? It has also been less than helpful that the nation's president has identified with leftist black street activists and lectured about the rage felt among blacks regarding police in America being justified. Obama has conveniently ignored the fact that both of the recent cop-killers harbored vicious anti-white, ant-police beliefs that has become a demented component of black urban activist culture. This festering culture of dysfunction has been primarily informed by the virulent hateful ideology of the so-called "Black Lives Matter" protesters.
...This dysfunctional rage has been brewing since Treyvon Martin in Florida, Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and Freddie Gray in Baltimore, Maryland. "Black Lives Matter" has been the chant of leftists all across America. Yet, black-on-black murder rates have skyrocketed across the nation. Milwaukee's murder rate was up 76% between 2014 and 2015, and similar increases were seen in Saint Louis, Baltimore, Chicago and Washington D.C. Seemingly, black lives only matter when a black person is shot by a police officer - most often a cop doing his duty. Also ignored is available data that informs us that blacks commit homicide eight times the rate of whites or Hispanics combined, and overall, more than half of the nation's homicide victims are black, though blacks make up only 13% of the population.
According to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, 69% of Americans say they race relations is at an all-time low since the 1992 Los Angeles riots. For too long, Americans have submitted themselves to vulgar, ignorant insults coming from activists marching through our cities chanting about imagined American racism and racist cops. Enough with the false claims of the race-obsessed protesters. It is past the time for truth telling about who the real racists are in this society, and this starts by putting the Black Lives Matter activists under the heat lamp.
Constable Council Nedd
Project 21's Council Nedd, a Pennsylvania State Constable and board member of the Fraternal Order of Constables, says President Obama is "responsible for fostering an environment in which war has openly been declared on America's law enforcement officials, and is calling upon President Obama to resign and to apologize:
President Obama is always quick to take credit for things that he may, or may not, have had anything to do with. Where is President Obama when it is time to take responsibility and pay the piper - when something goes horribly wrong?
President Obama is single-handedly responsible for fostering an environment in which war has openly been declared on America's law enforcement officials. Now, law enforcement officers are being openly hunted, and gunned down in the streets for daring to give to this nation by serving and protecting the residents of this country. President Obama should apologize for placing a bounty on the thin blue line that protects the good from the bad, the law-abiding from the law-breakers, and the sheep from the wolves.
Six days a week, I go out, into often hostile communities, to serve criminal warrants and capture fugitives that judges and public officials have asked me to capture on behalf of the communities that they have victimized. Next week I will be doing a peacekeeping assignment in Philadelphia during the Democratic National Convention, where tensions will already be heightened. For President Obama to turn his back on law enforcement, in favor of canonizing criminals, is the act of a priggish charlatan and ingrate. He should return his Nobel Peace Prize.
President Obama should resign and apologize to law enforcement for placing us in this position, turning his back on us and making martyrs of countless people who may not have been up to evil, but who were certainly up to no good.
Professionally, Council wears two hats: law enforcement and the ministry. He is an elected state constable in Pennsylvania and bishop and rector of St. Alban's Anglican Church in Pine Grove Mills, Pennsylvania. You can watch him talking about Black Lives Matter on NewsMax TV here, discussing the relationship between the police and the black community on Fox's The Kelly File here, discussing the important role of fathers in families on Fox's the Kelly File here and discussing efforts for positive change in communities on Fox's Hannity here.
A friend brought to my attention that Michael Mann, a 'Distinguished Professor' of Atmospheric Science at Penn State University, is whining again that the National Center for Public Policy Research, in 2010, questioned the Obama Administration's decision to send taxpayer dollars his way for economic stimulus purposes.
Mann's complaint is a perfect example of why so many of us are skeptical of his reliability on other matters, such as climate.
Mann complains, in his words,
In mid-January 2010, a group known as the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR), which receives funding from the Scaife Foundations, led a campaign to have my NSF grants revoked. The perverse premise was that I was somehow pocketing millions of dollars [emphasis added] of "Obama" stimulus money simply because I was a coinvestigator on several recently funded NSF grants. These absurd distortions were--no surprise--promoted by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and others of similar persuasion.
Perhaps it is unkind of me to point out the truth if a man so enjoys believing he is being persecuted that he's still complaining 6 1/2 years later, but our press release (which did get a lot of coverage) objected to the Administration granting the amount of $541,184 to Mann at Penn State.
How could we be implying he pocketed millions when we said he was granted little more than half a million?
And if we thought he pocketed it, why did we ask Penn State -- not him -- to return it?
The last time I heard from Michael Mann he was tweeting that I supposedly have a "[#KochBrother funded anti-environmental] agenda." I objected via a return Tweet, as neither I nor my employer receives funding from the Koch brothers. (What an "anti-environmental agenda" might be remains unclear.) Rather than issue a correction, he blocked me.
Not the most reliable guy, I think. This is worth remembering when he makes policy recommendations that could cost the taxpayers billions.
Project 21’s Derryck Green appeared on HLN’s “Dr. Drew” on July 11 to discuss the murder of Dallas police officers by Micah Johnson.
“I don’t care why he did it,” Green said about Johnson’s motive. “A lot of people have a lot of difficult things going on in their lives and they don’t resort to taking their anger or their frustration out by harming innocent people.”
Why is there such a mixed reaction within the black community to the murder of Dallas police officers? “There’s a sense of racial solidarity that exists in the black community that you have to support black people no matter what they say or do, or if you disagree… the criticism has to be minimized,” said Green. “So I think that does a disservice to the integrity of the black community by not standing up and condemning acts of evil or acts of terror when they rightly need to be condemned.”
Former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani was criticized for saying the Black Lives Matter movement is racist and that attention should be paid instead to the murder of black Americans by other black Americans. Green responded: “It goes to selective moral outrage. Statistically speaking, he’s correct. We don’t have enough outrage when blacks kill other blacks at the rate we are killing ourselves… This is why Black Lives Matter and those types of organizations don’t have traction, don’t have moral authority outside of their ideological echo chambers, because we are not giving the proper amount of attention to those things that are more important.”
I'm not sure which of our pieces referring to Black Lives Matter this gentleman read, but his advice is good regardless:
Having just read your piece over BLM as it pertains to the Ferguson case (I realize this is old news and NOT a recent post), I feel compelled to thank you for your HONEST analysis. This is, sadly, missing from today's climate.
I am a school teacher and my mantra is, "It's all about choices." The Brookings Institute just released more research on one of the largest issues facing the Black community. Namely, poverty. In it, it states that if one does NOT want to end up in poverty, DO these three things... 1. Graduate from High School. 2. Get a job and keep a job and don't quit that job until you find a better job. 3. Do NOT have a child out of wedlock.
If one does these things, the chances of ending up in poverty is under 9%.
I hope and pray a voice like yours gets a national spotlight.
Thanks and take care,
On June 28, Project 21 Co-Chair Horace Cooper appeared on 1240 WJIM-AM’s “The Steve Gruber Show” to discuss the trial and acquittal of Baltimore police officer Caesar R. Goodson, Jr. related to the death of Freddie Gray.
“The problem here is that the leadership in Baltimore was more interested in using a trial to scapegoat, rather than to carry out the awesome and serious responsibilities that come when you say, ‘I declare a felony has happened and this individual is responsible,’” said Cooper, who is also an attorney, constitutional law commentator and former member of the faculty at the George Mason University School of Law.
“A criminal trial is not a fact-finding opportunity,” continued Cooper. “You don’t have a trial just to find out ‘the truth.’ You have a trial because you have a reason to believe that a crime has actually occurred… You don’t have a trial because the crowd is agitated. You don’t have a trial because it’s election time and you have ambitions to become mayor or some other higher office. Those are abuses of office.”
Horace’s appearance can be heard below, starting about 3 minutes into the clip.
A document worth taking the time to understand
Project 21's Nadra Enzi had some solid words in rebuttal to a black Louisiana legislator who attacked the Declaration of Independence after one of her fellow legislators proposed requiring Louisiana schoolchildren to recite part of it.
State Rep. Barbara Norton, a Democrat, objects to the Declaration of Independence because, in her words, "only Caucasians (were) free" when it was written.
Of course, this is wrong on its face, since some blacks were free in 1776, and not everyone is either black or Caucasian, but let's look at Norton's larger point, which is that the Declaration was inaccurate to claim, in 1776, that "all men are created equal."
Norton's wrong, here, too, because the point of the Declaration is to state the philosophy that all men are created equal, therefore, a government (such as the one everyone in the colonies lived under when it was written) that does not treat them all equally is a government that is unjust, and one that should be replaced.
Ironically, Norton is arguing against the Declaration because it made the same point she's making -- that everyone is equal and government should treat them accordingly.
Norton is apparently one of those people who is happy to speak publicly about things without first learning much about them. Regrettably, a lot of politicians are that way, but "everybody does it" is a poor excuse for incompetence.
Project 21's Nadra Enzi (who also lives in Louisiana), in an interview with OneNewsNow, was more diplomatic than I am. OneNewsNow writes, in part:
A black conservative says a black Louisiana legislator was out of line for calling the Declaration of Independence "racist" during a debate.
Rep. Barbara Norton made the charge during debate on a bill to require school children to recite part of the founding document.
Nadra Enzi of Project 21 says he understands the context of Norton's argument, namely where people of African ancestry stood at the time of the document's signing in 1776.
"But if we're candid, significant advances have occurred," Enzi insists. "Had they not, then the state representative would not be able to be a state representative and lodge her complaint."
In fact, the Declaration of Independence has been credited for its historic statements that mankind's rights come from our Creator and government's role is to protect those rights.
The words of the Declaration were sprinkled throughout the famous "I Have a Dream" speech by Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1963, during the March on Washington.
"When the architects of the Great Republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence," King said, "they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir."
King went on to lament that the United States had "defaulted" on that "promissory note" for black Americans...
It's pretty clear that it isn't just the Declaration of Independence that Norton doesn't understand. She doesn't understand Dr. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, either.
My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and families of this brutal and cowardly attack upon my fellow Americans.
Whenever terrorists attack our homeland, they always pick soft targets in places where people are unable to defend themselves. While the pundits & political figures can give their opinions, quote taking points, boast that certain laws would have prevented this, if passed, the reality of the attack is much different from their fiction. A determined terrorist will find his way around any law that is passed. 9-11 demonstrated this. In that case the weapons of choice were everyday box cutters that can be brought at any discount store.
As a veteran, I say it is long past time for the pundits and political echo chamber to shut up, step up and put the blame squarely where it belongs: on those cowardly terrorists, who clearly don’t believe there is any law above their radical mindset and determination to kill the most defenseless and innocent worldwide.
Everyone in the Project 21 and National Center for Public Policy Research family joins with Kevin in expressing our sincere condolences to the families of those who died and our best wishes for the fastest-possible and most complete recovery to those who were injured.
I know you are in my prayers, and those of many others, both here and elsewhere. God bless you all.
Note to CBS: Not a real bomb
You can read the story here, but be aware that when the story first ran, it did not contain this critical paragraph:
Detectives investigating the incident are questioning a 44-year-old woman, but no charges have been filed so far in the case. 'At this point it does not appear to be related to the bathroom policy issues,' Evanston Police Commander Joseph Dugan said in an email."
Naturally, the story will have gotten most of its play the day it was new, and in that version, CBS notes a Target store was bombed, speculates the bombing was done by people who oppose the new restroom policy, and then specifies that the bombing "coincided" with us questioning Target's CEO about the policy at the annual shareholder meeting.
Inasmuch as we are a 34-year-old think-tank with zero history of bombings or violence of any sort, and we've had no changes in leadership (information CBS could easily obtain), it would have been strange indeed if we had suddenly decided to become mad bombers.
Indeed, we have participated in 85 shareholder meetings in the last three years alone, with no associated bombings. This information also was available to CBS. It was even in the press release CBS was working from.
As a side note, the story was biased in another -- but admittedly, less significant way, in that it did not insinuate a felony -- manner.
Our work at Target was described as, "a conservative activist asked Target CEO Brian Cornell if he regretted Target's policy of inclusion and if he viewed as bigots those who disagreed with the retailer's stance."
We did not ask Mr. Cornell if he regretted his "policy of inclusion." That's CBS inserting its own point of view.
We wouldn't use that phrase. It's inaccurate; Target allowed all its customers access to restrooms and fitting rooms before April 19 as well. No one who did not have access to restrooms and fitting rooms before has it now.
Furthermore, many people do not see Target's policy as one of "inclusion" at all. They see it as Target telling people who don't want to undress in front of the opposite sex that they are not wanted at Target.
CBS also left out why we asked Mr. Cornell if he believes people who believe in segregating restrooms and fitting rooms by biological sex are "bigots." We did so because Mr. Cornell explicitly compared Target's decision-making on this issue with its decision to employ black models in its advertising in the 1960s, and people who opposed the hiring of black models with people who oppose anything-goes restrooms and fitting rooms today.
Mr. Cornell ducked all the questions, which is curious, because giving good answers would have been in his interest, and Target's.
Maybe he had no good answers to give.
Today was the first shareholder meeting of the retail giant Target since its April 19 announcement that people can no longer expect that its fitting rooms and restrooms are for the use of people of the same biological sex.
Target's management referred to this as a "welcoming" gesture, but over 1.3 million Americans signed an American Family Association petition saying they no longer plan to shop at Target as a result.
The National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project (FEP) was on hand at the shareholder meeting, where FEP Director Justin Danhof spoke. He also asked Target CEO Brian Cornell a question about its new fitting and restroom policy.
Sarah Halzack of the Washington Post covered our activities at Target, writing, in part:
...Against that backdrop, Justin Danhof, a director at the National Center for Public Policy Research, raised the topic at Target’s Wednesday shareholders’ meeting in Costa Mesa, Calif. Danhof asked Target chief executive Brian Cornell whether he believed that customers and investors who disagree with Target’s policy are bigots, as well as whether Cornell regretted implementing the policy. Danhof said Cornell responded to his questions by speaking generally about the retailer’s focus on diversity. A Target spokeswoman said that Cornell “very much did reiterate that we want to be a place that is welcoming, comfortable and safe” for all shoppers.
Danhof was disappointed in Cornell’s answers, saying, “I’ve never left a meeting feeling that empty.”
Target told reporters in May that it had been monitoring sales and customer behavior closely in the wake of the bathroom policy announcement and said it has not detected any impact on sales. A Target executive reiterated that finding at the shareholders’ meeting on Wednesday...
I think it is extremely strange that Target's management did not prepare a solid, detailed defense of its actions for use at the shareholder meeting today. No retail store shareholder likes to see 1.3 million people sign a petition boycotting their store, and Target's stock value has dropped 18 percent during the seven weeks since the restroom announcement.
The Post's Halzack took issue with us noting the stock price drop, countering:
...NCPPR, the conservative think tank where Danhof works, notes that Target’s stock has sunk recently and suggests that this is evidence of negative fallout from the bathroom policy. But last month, Target delivered a lackluster first-quarter earnings report and gave a gloomy forecast for the second quarter, which analysts have suggested is likely the reason investors have soured on the stock. Plus, the retail industry has generally been in a rough patch, which probably hasn’t helped investors confidence in the Minneapolis-based company...
Here's the thing. If investor confidence is likely to affect the stock price, as Halzack says (and I agree), what is the impact on investor confidence when a restyle giant's management team responds to a "lackluster" first quarter by jumping headfirst into a highly-controversial culture war issue? Wouldn't most shareholders prefer to see management focused on sales?
This is especially true in the case of Target. Many of its stores have "family" style restrooms designed for single use, and the chain has decided to convert the restrooms in all of its stores to the family style. So Target would have found it easier than most stores to skip this particular culture war battle entirely, taking no sides, and making no one unhappy.
But, instead, it decided to get political.
As the Washington Post story explains, Target's management declined to explain why it did what it did. I guess it believes shareholders aren't entitled to know.
John Meredith with Muhammad Ali
I woke this morning to news of the passing of Muhammad Ali. My heart was instantly saddened but then fond memories of my interactions with The Greatest began to flood my thoughts.
As a child, I had the pleasure of being an overnight guest of the Champ at one of his homes. I was traveling with my father, James Meredith, to where and why I have no recollection but I distinctly recall the pronouncement that the home we were pulling up to was Muhammad Ali’s and that I better not “show out” while I was there.
It was a profound experience. I have remembered it all these years and was honored when some 30-35 years later I had the pleasure of running into him at an event in Washington, DC. My wife and I had gone through the reception line and were chatting with other guests when Mr. Ali’s assistant came over to us and said to me, “the Champ would like to see you.”
I followed the staffer into the cordoned section were Ali was sitting and sat next to him. Through the conversation it was apparent he knew who I was and when I shared my story of our stay at his house so many decades prior, he smiled, then shared one of his stories of him and my father.
Millions around the world will mourn the loss of this human being, Tina and I among them. But we will also reminisce fondly of our encounters with him and how wonderful those experiences were. RIP Muhammad.
How would you feel about your local police department regularly going through your trash?
New York city residents don't wonder -- it's happening now under the regime of left-wing mayor Bill de Blasio.
Funny thing about liberals.
They are so big on "privacy" they invented it as a constitutional right and pretty much lose their minds if anyone points out there isn't actually a right to privacy spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, but when it comes to actually believing the citizens have a right to keep their stuff private from the government, where are they?
They are busy putting the government into your business, that's where they are.
A person's trash tends to have a lot of personal things in it. Check stubs that show what you earn; bills that show what you spent and on what; bottles showing what prescription drugs you take; boxes that birth control devices came in and lots more.
You want to know a person's secrets, go through their trash.
So the same liberals who claim a "right to privacy" so sacrosanct we are told to allow the killing of unborn children to protect it will send the police department to your home to rifle through your trash, as described in this report, including video about New York City police officers going through people's trash in order to make certain they didn't put anything into the regular trash that could have been recycled.
The news article about the video extensively quotes the National Center's own Jeff Stier.
Mayor de Blasio and his ilk apparently believe recycling is more important than babies' lives. How sane people can believe this is beyond my understanding.
Last Friday, May 27, Jeff Stier, the Risk Analysis Director at the National Center for Public Policy Research, appeared on CNBC to discuss a new NIH study regarding the link between cell phones and cancer in rats.
Jeff thought the study was completely irrelevant to humans, unless those humans own cellphone-using rats:
These studies are animal studies, high-dose long-term exposure. Nobody’s exposed to that much cell phone that long at the human equivalent of the rats. This study is more junk science. It’s not relevant to our everyday lives. I have no quibble with the study, by the way. It’s true. And I’m going to keep my male rats away from cell phones. But it’s not relevant to us.
An excerpt of Jeff’s appearance on CNBC’s “Power Lunch” can be seen below, after the ad.
Pinocchio votes. He apparently also works at Think Progress.
Claims the left-wing Think Progress:
This year marks the first presidential election in 50 years without a functioning Voting Rights Act -- and it’s not going well.
We still have the Voting Rights Act. A functioning Voting Rights Act.
The left lies to push its agenda, but these lies come at a cost. Cynicism, for one thing. People falsely believing their fellow citizens are biased against them, for another. Unnecessary and unhelpful divisiveness.
No one (to my knowledge) claims the left doesn't have the right to make its best case for left-wing policies, but even the left should realize that if it needs to tell lies to make that best case, it should reconsider the policies.
In brief, here's the truth:
in 2013, in Shelby County, Alabama v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated one half of one section of the 19-section Voting Rights Act. Not all 19 sections, but one-half of one of 19 sections.
The invalidated section, 4(b), required a handful of states and localities to get advance approval from the U.S. Department of Justice before they changed any voting laws. The Supreme Court ruled that because the list of states and localities had not been updated since 1975, it was out of date.
Every other protection in the Voting Rights Act remains.
Even the notion that certain states and localities could be required to get advance permission -- a procedure called "preclearance" -- was upheld, as long as the states and localities subjected to it have been determined by Congress to have a recent history of adopting voting laws with racial or other bias.
Plus, preclearance never applied to the entire country. It applied to Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia (partial), California (partial), Florida (partial), New York (partial), North Carolina (partial), South Dakota (partial), Michigan (partial) and New Hampshire (partial). Outside of these areas, and even in these areas in every way except preclearance, the Voting Rights Act hasn't changed at all.
Quite a stretch to claim that we have no functioning Voting Rights Act whatsoever.
In this age of social media, if any state or locality were to try to change a voting law to make it racially biased, there would be plenty of attention. There's plenty of attention even to false allegations of bias! It's not 1965 anymore.
Think Progress isn't the only liberal to lie about this. Last year, Jesse Jackson falsely claimed the Supreme Court had made the Voting Rights Act "null and void." Project 21's Cherylyn Harley LeBon, Horace Cooper, Shelby Emmett and Joe Hicks explained at the time why Jackson's allegation simply isn't true. I recommend their statement, and the links within it, to anyone who wants more details on this issue.
Reasonable people can disagree over such issues as whether there should be early voting, voter ID, and so forth, but facts are facts. The United States of America still has its -- very powerful -- federal Voting Rights Act.
U.S. Court of Federal Claims
Attorneys John Yoo and Horace Cooper have an op-ed in Investors Business Daily, published just now, asking why the Obama Administration is hiding thousands of documents relating to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Can't be national security reasons, surely...
A clue might be found in the fact that shareholders in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have sued the U.S. government, contending that the federal government's takeover of the institutions in 2008, and a diversion of profits to the federal government in 2012, constituted an unconstitutional taking of property.
Another clue might come from something a federal judge said when she disagreed with Obama:
The court will not condone the misuse of a protective order as a shield to insulate public officials from criticism in the way they execute their public duties.
John Yoo is Heller Professor of Law at the UC Berkeley School of Law and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, while Horace Cooper is a National Center senior fellow and co-chairman of the African-American leadership group Project 21.
Read their article here.
National Center Fellow and Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper gives real-life examples of voter fraud from all over the United States.
While some of these examples -- such as a New Orleans precinct that enjoyed a 108% voter turnout -- actually make Horace and the host of the show, Jack Burkman, laugh, voter fraud itself is no laughing matter.
It's fashionable on the left to claim voter fraud doesn't exist, but 108 percent voter turnouts don't happen by themselves.
Or sharing your best guess, anyway, if you aren't careful to be politically-correct.
In this YouTube clip from Behind the Curtain with Jack Burkman, Project 21's Archbishop Council Nedd II addressed the firing of WTAE-Pittsburgh TV News Anchor Wendy Bell.
After six people, including an unborn baby, three adults in their mid-twenties and no one over 37, were gunned down in an unsolved murder a few blocks from WTAE's studio, Bell wrote, in part:
...There's no nice words to write when a coward holding an AK-47 hoses down a family and their friends sharing laughs and a mild evening on a back porch in Wilkinsburg. There's no kind words when 6 people are murdered. When their children have to hide for cover and then emerge from the frightened shadows to find their mother's face blown off or their father's twisted body leaking blood into the dirt from all the bullet holes. There's just been nothing nice to say. And I've been dragging around this feeling like a cold I can't shake that rattles in my chest each time I breathe and makes my temples throb. I don't want to hurt anymore. I'm tired of hurting.
You needn't be a criminal profiler to draw a mental sketch of the killers who broke so many hearts two weeks ago Wednesday. I will tell you they live within 5 miles of Franklin Avenue and Ardmore Boulevard and have been hiding out since in a home likely much closer to that backyard patio than anyone thinks. They are young black men, likely teens or in their early 20s. They have multiple siblings from multiple fathers and their mothers work multiple jobs. These boys have been in the system before. They've grown up there. They know the police. They've been arrested. They've made the circuit and nothing has scared them enough. Now they are lost. Once you kill a neighbor's three children, two nieces and her unborn grandson, there's no coming back. There's nothing nice to say about that.
Council points out that Bell's comments received more national attention than the actual murder of six people. He also noted the irony: "WTAE is a Hearst company. How did William Randolph Hearst make his money? By slandering people!"
"She dares to show some emotion; to have an emotional moment about it, and she gets fired for it," Council said.
Burkman said, "political correctness... it's becoming a kind of terrorism in this country... it's just a power game where people use this as a threat."
Critics of Bell seem not to be moved by the fact that her comments clearly were motivated by distress at the deaths of black people. She's racist anyway, according to their accusatory thinking.
Watch the entire 9-minute TV segment here.
For more Project 21 commentary on the Wendy Bell firing, go here.
Why would a public research university boasting a top-100 geology program deliberately hide its work?
So asks -- and answers -- the National Center's Jeff Stier in an op-ed published today in Newsweek.
Copyright National Center for Public Policy Research 20 F Street NW #700 Washington DC 20001