Deneen Borelli: Pelosi "Exaggerating" on Chinese Human Rights Advances
David W. Almasi |
May 25, 2012 at 4:15 PM See Steven Crowder’s other National Center videos here.
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.
501 Capitol Court, NE
Washington, D.C. 20002
(202) 543-4110
Fax (202) 543-5975
David W. Almasi |
May 25, 2012 at 4:15 PM
David W. Almasi |
May 24, 2012 at 5:38 PM
The New Black Panther Party’s King Samir Shabazz (left)Remember when MSNBC, the NAACP and the rest of the liberal crowd was fixated on perceived Tea Party racism and extremism? It was all they seemed to talk about in 2009 and 2010, yet they were never be able to find a smoking gun.
While it could be said that their failure is because there is nothing to find, one can’t help but also figure they are clumsy investigators. After all, how could such altruistic groups not be outraged at the very blatant and obvious racism and extremism of the New Black Panther Party? And how could they fail to see the latest racist and extremist craziness coming from high within the Party’s ranks?
First, there’s the latest issue of the NBPP’s The New Black Panther newspaper (“America’s fastest growing black national newspaper”). It’s cover story — The Ballot or The Bullet: Which Way for Black People? — is very hostile to President Obama. The cover alone seems to beg for a violent response.
In the paper, NBPP chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz writes about Obama: “The black community is no better off that [sic] before he was in office. We are curious as to what his agenda is for Black people in America and if he even has one.” Shabazz adds: “Black America, you must decide who will best represent you in 2012. You must decide if you will choose the ballot as a means to change, or the bullet… [D]emanding change does come by any means necessary.”
Chawn Kweli, the paper’s editor, is also very ungracious in his demeanor toward the President. He writes: “With strategy, Obama will sing a little Al Green, do a little dance and win black votes. Sadly, like obedient sheep’s [sic], we go to the polls and vote for ‘Black skin,’ no matter how destructive the policies.”
Very angry. Very racial. And very much not on the radar screens of liberal watchdogs.
Project 21 spokeswoman Shelby Emmett comments on the double standard that critics of the Tea Party movement are exhibiting in the face of true racial hostility:
It’s almost funny. When a conservative says something even remotely similar to this, it is racist. You can’t hear enough condemnation of it. When the far-left black nationalists say it and really mean it, all you hear are crickets.
And then there is our old friend King Samir Shabazz, the NBPP’s national field marshal. In a new screed attributed to him that is posted on the Internet (warning: extreme content), Shabazz advocates violence against white people.
He says, among other things:
I hate the white man.
There is no such thing as a black KKK. Because you should be thankful we’re not running around her hanging crackers by nooses and that kind of stuff yet… Yet!… Yet! You should be very thankful!
We’re taught to send this cracker to the cemetery… So kiss ‘em goodbye.
Once again, it’s heavy stuff. And there is nary a peep from anyone left of center. It ruins their credibility, does it not?
Project 21 spokesman Kevin Martin thinks so. Kevin says:
As a conservative black American, I’m not shocked by the latest statements by the New Black Panther Party’s King Samir Shabazz.
Even the most casual observer must agree that the New Black Panther Party’s actions regularly get a free pass from the mainstream media as well as the Obama Administration Department of Justice. Shabazz’s latest hate-filled tirade once again shows that the group has violent intentions. Like the KKK, they must be considered a domestic terrorist group for their work to incite racial violence among Americans.
While the mainstream media worked hard to find evidence of racism within the Tea Party movement, it seems the New Black Panther Party is overlooked because charges of racism today are instead too often misappropriated to demean the character and ideas of those who oppose liberalism. I figure that is why the actions and statements of the New Black Panther Party are overlooked by establishment liberals and the mainstream media. Their lack of outrage should be considered silent approval of the group’s mindset. After all, that is the attitude they have taken regarding conservative leaders and the Tea Party movement.
Amy Ridenour |
May 19, 2012 at 12:20 AM
National Center for Public Policy Research adjunct fellow and legal commentator Horace Cooper today issued the following statement concerning the Voter ID legislation signed into law by Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell:
Governor McDonnell and the state of Virginia are to be commended for the steps they are taking to ensure that the votes of lawful residents are counted. Ballot integrity and self-government go hand-in-hand.More here.Virginia now joins the majority of states in the US requiring this simple and transparent technique -- Voter ID cards -- to ensure that real voters decide who our elected officials will be.
David W. Almasi |
May 18, 2012 at 4:46 PM
Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli is scheduled to be on the Fox News Channel on Sunday afternoon.
She is slated to join co-host Heather Childers and other Fox News contributors during the “Power Panel” segment of the “America’s News Headquarters” program. The group will talk about the top news stories of the past week and breaking news should it be occurring.
Deneen’s segment is expected to air at approximately 4:40PM eastern.
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.
David W. Almasi |
May 18, 2012 at 4:33 PM Earlier this week, Project 21 member Oscar Murdock represented the National Center at the Time Warner, Inc. shareholder meeting.
Oscar pretty much backed Time Warner chairman and CEO Jeff Bewkes into a corner about the outrageous political radicalism of actor Morgan Freeman and how it might harm the profitability of the company’s movies that feature him.
Last year, Freeman went on CNN to promote the movie “Dolphin Tale,” but ended up alienating more than half of the politically-active population when he declared that conservatives, Republicans and tea party members were acting in a “racist” manner when they opposed the President and wanted to “screw the country” in order to make Obama look bad.
At the meeting, Oscar pointed out that there is evidence that Freeman’s fiery remarks may have harmed the box office returns for “Dolphin Tale,” and that Freeman doubling-down on his extremism could potentially hurt the upcoming Warner Brothers Studios film “The Dark Knight Rises” if those who are offended decide to boycott the movie.
But Bewkes said there was “not much” he could do when an actor pipe up.
Really?
He could — as the man at the top — take responsibility for the mistake and apologize. That’d be a start. Bewkes could ask Freeman to “stick to the script” and not use a company press tour to promote his political predilections. If all else fails, there are plenty of actors in Hollywood who can take Freeman’s place in the next movie.
The National Center’s star turn at the shareholder meeting in Burbank was a hit with the media. To follow is some of the media citations and interviews related to the Time Warner Inc. shareholder meeting since Tuesday:
The Hollywood Reporter
The Guardian (U.K.)
Esquire magazine
The Atlantic Wire
CRN Radio Network
EURweb
India Times
Yahoo! News
American Family Radio/OneNewsNow
MovieLine
KVEL – Vernal, Utah
The Grio
Independent Film News and Media
WFOY – St. Augustine, Florida
ComicBookMovie.com
David W. Almasi |
May 15, 2012 at 5:09 PM Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli says that President Obama has “thrown the black community… under the bus” in favor of gays with the announcement of his support for same-sex marriage. With the news that many black pastors are speaking out against the President on the decision, Deneen points out that Obama has put himself “on the wrong side of the issue,” alienating some of his most loyal supporters by going against closely-held moral values in the black community. Joining Deneen in this panel discussion is Fox News Channel’s “Happening Now” on 5/15/12 is co-host Bill Hemmer and talk radio host Santita Jackson (Jesse’s daughter).
David W. Almasi |
May 14, 2012 at 10:40 AM Discussing the increase in drone attacks on terrorists in Yemen and the foiling of another airline bomb plot, Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli notes that it is good to know that the war on terrorism is still taking the fight to the terrorists’ bases rather than only concentrating on frisking American kids and the elderly in airports. On another topic in which a New Jersey standardized test asked schoolchildren to reveal a secret, Deneen pointed out that this overreach by educators is not only wrong but also “undermines what the definition of what a secret is.”
Deneen is joined in this 5/13/12 discussion on the Fox News Channel’s “America’s News Headquarters” by Fox News host Heather Childers as well as journalist Judith Miller and businesswoman Patricia Powell.
Amy Ridenour |
May 11, 2012 at 8:51 PM
School bake sales: No longer on the endangered list in Massachusetts
The ban was quickly repealed following a public uproar, which led to a vote to repeal the ban in the Massachusetts state House and an order by Governor Patrick to the state's Department of Public Health to lift the ban.
The National Center for Public Policy Research was extremely active in publicizing the ban, helping instigate the public revolt that restored the rights of localities to set their own policies, and send a message to nanny state activists across the country.
These are among the many National Center activities that helped lead to this rollback:
Jeff Stier, interview, WXKS Boston, May 8National Center personnel are continuing research and public education efforts on many nanny state issues.Jeff Stier, interview, KNX Los Angeles, May 8
Jeff Stier, interview, Terry Lowry syndicated radio (11 markets), May 9
Jeff Stier, interview, WTPL Concord, May 9
Jeff Stier, CNS News, May 9
David Almasi, interview, Brad Davis syndicated radio (4 markets), May 9
Jeff Stier, interview, G. Gordon Liddy syndicated radio (150+ markets), May 9
Jeff Stier, interview, WYSL Rochester, May 9
Cherylyn LeBon, interview, WFOY St Augustine, May 9
Op/Ed, "Opinion: Obesity Forecast is Overblown," New York Newsday, May 9, by Jeff Stier and David W. Almasi
Cherylyn LeBon, interview, WEAA Baltimore, May 9
Cherylyn LeBon, interview, Falls Radio Network (3 markets), May 9
Jeff Stier, interview, WIBA/WISN Madison/Milwaukee, May 10
Cherylyn LeBon, interview, KVEL NE Utah, May 10
David Almasi, interview, WCam & Company (NRA News)
Jeff Stier, interview, WGSO New Orleans, May 11
Cherylyn LeBon, interview, American Family Radio/One News Now, May 11
Jeff Stier, website, The Hay Ride
Jeff Stier |
May 10, 2012 at 7:38 PM In an op-ed in today’s Newsday, David Almasi and I explain why the obesity forecast in the news this week is overblown, and how it was choreographed to justify more nanny-state regulations.
We wrote,
Take those grim claims about a fat future for America with a grain of salt.
Several grains of salt, in fact. Add flour, sugar, baking powder, shortening, milk, eggs and vanilla. Mix them all together and bake for 20 minutes at 350 degrees.
Enjoy the cupcake this will create with the realization that the predictions are only half-baked. But eat in moderation. That’s the key to beating obesity.
In a media blitz that includes a taxpayer-funded conference, reports from the Institute of Medicine (the health policy arm of the National Academy of Sciences) and Duke University, and a four-part HBO “Weight of the Nation” documentary beginning next week, a study led by researchers at Duke predicts that 42 percent of Americans will be obese by 2030. That’s a huge increase from about 36 percent in 2010 — a figure that’s held relatively steady for about a decade.
The assertion, however, is as reliable a predictor as a Magic Eight Ball. It’s based on projections like the number of fast-food restaurants likely to be built over the next two decades. Wall Street analysts can’t predict such things five years out. Yet the researchers claim to guess not only the number, but what people will eat in those establishments and how those choices will fit into their overall lifestyles.
That’s about as nutty as predicting obesity based on Internet access, which the researchers also did, predicting technological advancement encourages laziness.
Another factor they threw into the mix was the price of alcohol. The thinking is that if alcohol prices are low, people will drink to excess and gain weight. That is a very speculative assumption for what is supposed to be a scientific report.
The real purpose of the report is to ease the public into an acceptance of authoritarian interventions. The proposed solutions — which include high soda taxes, minimum pricing on alcohol (already being considered in Europe) and restrictions on where fast-food restaurants can open (already law in Los Angeles) are very unpopular. So activists feel the need to overstate the risk to make the case that we need emergency measures, no matter how drastic.
Institute of Medicine committee member Shiriki Kumanyika said as much in a Reuters interview, claiming: “The average person cannot maintain a healthy weight in this obesity-promoting environment.”
Other remedies for America’s junk-food junkies would likely include food restrictions that mimic today’s tobacco regulations. Expect to see higher taxes on food that government bureaucrats don’t want you to eat, as well as marketing restrictions, and more laws like the one passed this week in Massachusetts — a ban on public school bake sales.
These activists underestimate the American people. Amid the calls for government control over the nation’s cupboard, scant credit is given to the public’s willingness to adopt healthy eating habits. The Walt Disney Co. found more than half of its theme park customers took to its healthier food offerings. The Chop’t Creative Salad fast-casual restaurant chain in New York City, Westchester and Washington, D.C., had a 260 percent growth in revenue between 2006 and 2009.
Another missing element is skepticism. A true indicator of rigorous research is lingering doubt. There seems to be none here, as if the conclusion magically fit the hypothesis. One wonders if the reception would be the same if the report projected dramatically falling obesity rates.
To be sure, obesity is a public health problem that should be addressed with scientific discipline. Instead, as the current campaign illustrates, activists are politicizing obesity — using it as a vehicle to try to remake the American way of life.
Just as too much candy and soda crowd out more nutrient-rich and lower-calorie food and drink, flawed approaches such as this taxpayer-funded nanny-state blueprint could crowd out better ideas.
David W. Almasi |
May 9, 2012 at 9:14 PM
Most likely because Vice President Biden forced his hand and not necessarily due to any evolution of his beliefs, President Obama today came out of the closet to announce his latest flip-flop in support of gay marriage.
This decision does not sit well with Project 21 member Council Nedd II, who is also the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Missionary Church & Bishop Ordinary of the Diocese of the Chesapeake and Northeast.
Bishop Nedd says his opposition to the President’s current sentiment to favor creating a new civil right at the expense of traditional marriage is not about bias or discrimination as it is about preserving the sanctity of faith. Council says:
Opposition to gay marriage is not about hating homosexuals. It is simply about preserving the sanctity of marriage and what our God has ordained as a blessed thing.
While New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the President’s announcement is a major turning point in American civil rights, gay marriage actually mocks the institution at the foundation of all civilization.
I preached about this very point this past Sunday. What’s happening is nothing new in the history of the world, but our modern society is now primed for decline. The Book of Judges in the Bible outlines the pattern that mankind seemingly never learns from. First, social and sexual morality breaks down. Next, the crime rate rises slowly – then exponentially. Finally, society disintegrates altogether. That cycle has begun again.
Council does not just dwell on the morality. He also is appalled by the political and international facets of the Obama announcement. He continues:
Putting aside the moral aspect of all of this, President Obama expressing his support for same-sex marriage also takes political pandering and governing by poll numbers to a new level.
It is more than just one man’s opinion when Obama chooses to use the bully pulpit of the presidency.
It’s essentially policymaking by referendum. Obama is acting like a puppet on the string – dancing to the whims of the left-wing special interests. Is he that beholden to them?
I recently returned from an extended stay in the Persian Gulf. Christians and Muslims alike there believe America is at the heart of the world’s moral decline. I would try to come to the defense of my country, blaming the French. But, despite the fact that no one has paid attention to the French much for decades, we actually now seem to be following their lead.
David W. Almasi |
May 9, 2012 at 2:47 PM
National Center staffers Tom and Deneen Borelli — director of the Free Enterprise Project and fellow with Project 21, respectively — will be guests of Glenn Beck on GBTV tonight. They will be talking about Occupy Wall Street’s fight against capitalism, with a focus on today’s protests at the Bank of America shareholder meeting.
The Borelli’s will be on during the first hour of GBTV at 5:00PM eastern. GBTV is a pay-per-view service. More information about it can be obtained by clicking here.
David W. Almasi |
May 9, 2012 at 10:17 AM
On August 1, the only food that can legally be sold in Massachusetts public schools is food that is prepared or distributed by the school. That means the era of the bake sale is over in the Bay State. As if that isn’t enough, regulators are looking to further ban any similar sales as they relate to after-school activities such as banquets, sporting events and door-to-door candy sales.
Interviewed by UPI, one PTA parent succinctly explains the effect this ban will have on fundraising for extracurricular organizations such as clubs and sports teams: “If you want to make a quick $250, you hold a bake sale.”
But the Massachusetts Department of Public Health says selling Bundt cakes to buy bats is no way to combat childhood obesity. DPH medical director Dr. Lauren Smith says: “We know that schools need those clubs and resources. We want them to be sure and have them, but to [fundraise for] them a different way.”
So good luck with that, parents!
Project 21 spokeswoman Cherylyn Harley LeBon says this is yet another example of the rise of the nanny state in America, and that the government needs to realize it is the home where habits are acquired and not their institutions of learning. Cherylyn says:
As the mother of two young children, I am just as concerned as anyone else about alarming obesity rates in our country. No one wants their child to be obese. However, it is not the government’s job to police what our children consume. It is parent’s responsibility to provide their children with healthy and nutritious meals.
States and schools can ban whatever food they prefer, but children will learn healthy eating habits at their own kitchen table — not from a state imposed law.
Jeff Stier |
May 8, 2012 at 3:41 PM In a piece today for Breitbart’s Big Government, I criticize the Food and Drug Administration for distorting both law and science.
The Food and Drug Administration is supposed to be the scientific arbiter concerning the safety of dietary supplements. Instead, it is acting arbitrarily, choosing to target one product not because of any actual risk, but as an attempt to justify its own forthcoming regulations.
The FDA issued warning letters late last month to ten makers of popular workout supplements containing the ingredient DMAA. The products are supposed to give users the feel one would get after drinking a few cups of coffee. DMAA is found in geranium plants, but it is more efficiently produced in a lab, just like many vitamins and minerals Americans use every day.
Interestingly, the FDA warnings didn’t go so far as to actually ban DMAA, perhaps realizing it doesn’t have the science or legal authority to do so. Instead, the letters threatened a ban sometime in the future — still a powerful regulatory action – and implicitly pressured the supplement makers to take their products off the market.
What would be the basis for FDA’s authority to ban a nutritional supplement it hasn’t shown to be harmful?
The best the agency could do is cite its own bizarre draft guidance that because the DMAA used in the supplements is created in a lab, rather than extracted from geranium plants, it can’t be used as an active ingredient. Those guidelines – which do not have the force or effect of law – have not been finalized and have been criticized by the authors of the law which dictates how the agency regulates supplements.In the draft guidance issued last year, the FDA claims that synthetic copies of botanicals (like DMAA) cannot be “dietary ingredients.” This approach simply makes no sense. The vitamins that millions of Americans take every day are synthetic copies; it’s not like oranges are being squeezed to produce the Vitamin C for daily capsules.
As the American Herbal Product Association reasonably asserts, “If DMAA exists naturally in geranium - which has been in the food supply for years - synthesized DMAA is also a lawful dietary ingredient permitted for use in supplements.”
Senators Orin Hatch and Tom Harkin, who wrote the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), which gives FDA authority to govern supplements, harshly criticized the agency’s draft guidance last year. They wrote that the agency’s draft guidance undermines the very law it is supposed to interpret and that it “attempts to assert that synthetic copies of botanicals can never be a dietary ingredient, an assertion that is wholly without statutory basis, and in fact, contradicts longstanding FDA policy.”
Under the FDA’s distorted logic, if only manufacturers changed the source of their DMAA from labs to fields, the product would be perfectly fine.
Well, not exactly. The FDA, struggling to justify the warning, also makes unsubstantiated allegations about the safety of DMAA. Hundreds of millions of products containing DMAA have been sold since it became popular over the last five years with only one reported adverse effect. If only FDA approved pharmaceutical products had the same safety record. The agency should be held to higher standards.
I’m no advocate for dietary supplements. I disagree with the supplement industry’s resistance to widespread calls for DSHEA to be reformed. Most scientists, including many at the FDA, believe we should hold supplement makers to the same standards as pharmaceutical companies. Why? Because agents that claim to have a medicinal effect on the body should be shown to be safe and effective, regardless of whether they are pharmaceuticals or dietary supplements. Most simply put, if a product can change you to make you well, it can also change you to make you ill.But here’s the kicker: this holds true whether the product is made by scientists or made by nature. Yet ironically, this is the very truism that FDA now is ignoring to force manufacturers to withdraw DMAA, since the source used in popular products such as Jack3D comes from a lab, not nature. DSHEA is flawed. But under any reasonable legal and scientific interpretation of the law, there’s no basis for FDA’s heavy handed regulatory threats against DMAA. If the agency wants more regulatory authority, it should persuade Congress to grant that authority. But until then, the agency should stick to the science and stick to the law as it is written.
David W. Almasi |
May 7, 2012 at 2:48 PM On the 5/6/12 edition of “America’s News Headquarters” on the Fox News Channel, Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli calls Vice President Biden’s recent comments favoring gay marriage a “trial balloon” for President Obama potentially changing his own view on the issue. Deneen says it is “insulting” to compare gay marriage advocacy to efforts against discrimination of American blacks in the past, saying gay marriage is “not a civil rights issue.”
On another topic discussed during the segment, Deneen and her fellow panelists agree that a female lawyer involved in a terrorism trial has every right to dress in a way that she says will not offend her Islamic clients, but she has no right to demand a similar dress code be enforced against other women in the courtroom.
Later in this “Power Panel” segment, Deneen says “you can’t change the rules in the middle of the game” with regard to a 13-year-old boy who was kicked off an otherwise all-girl field hockey team because of fears that his presence on the team would cause it to someday be dominated by boys. This situation delves to the heart of the arguments about gender parity in youth-related sports in America.
Deneen is joined in this discussion by Fox News Channel guest host Heather Childers, Fox News contributor July Roginsky and talk show host Mary Walter.
Jeff Stier |
May 7, 2012 at 11:28 AM The Boston Herald reports that the food police in Boston are banning bake sales in schools.
Democratic state Senator Susan Fargo, chairwoman of the Joint Committee on Public Health, told the Herald that childhood obesity has reached “crisis” proportions. She justifies the draconian measure, “If we didn’t have so many kids that were obese, we could have let things go.”
I’ll be speaking out about the absurdity on Boston’s Talk 1200 with Jeff Katz at 8:05 AM Tuesday.
Amy Ridenour |
May 6, 2012 at 2:08 PM National Center Senior Fellow R.J. Smith -- easily one of the nation's most dedicated bird lovers, by the way -- sent along this hilarious short video of comedian James Gregory having a bit of fun talking about seemingly nonsensical animal protection policies. Enjoy.
Amy Ridenour |
May 6, 2012 at 1:38 PM 
I am amused to see, on an undeniably left-wing, though oddly-named website, the "World War Four Report," a criticism of of the National Center for Public Policy Research for, of all things, having a "neutral" name.
The website says, "DC's The Hill blog runs a piece entitled 'Fracking Innovations Enhancing Energy Independence' by one Bonner Cohen of the National Center for Public Policy Research (never trust think-tanks with bogus "neutral" names like that)."
That's the left for you. Always finding something to criticize that has nothing to do with the facts of a case, and not even getting that right. We're hardly alone. Does "The Brookings Institution" sound liberal on its face? Does the name of the "American Enterprise Institute" sound like a center-right outfit plus Norman Ornstein? Does the "Center for American Progress" sound like propagandists pushing policies promoting totalitarianism and bankruptcy? Does "The Heritage Foundation" sound like the most useful of the lot?
Nope, you have to dig a little deeper than the letterhead, and that's where we lose the left.
What has "World War Four" upset (what kind of a ridiculous name is "World War Four," anyway?) is the good news in Bonner Cohen's op-ed about America's increasing access to inexpensive natural gas and its benefits for U.S. energy independence (not to mention jobs). Nothing gives liberals the hives like cheap, plentiful energy, unless it is a strong United States, so I can see why a combination of both has them so irritated.
But for Americans generally, Bonner's article on natural gas is great news:
'Energy independence,' long an empty promise gladly served up by crafty politicians eager to curry favor with unwitting voters, might be a lot closer than even the most starry-eyed dreamer could have imagined only a short time ago.Read the rest here. If you like America and want her to prosper, anyway.The country is in the grip of what has rightly been called the 'shale energy revolution.' It is a revolution because it overthrows the existing order and casts aside long-standing assumptions about America's energy future. It's all about shale -- fine-grained sedentary rock composed of mud, clay and silt -- and our newfound ability to convert it to affordable energy.
In the space of a few short years, the United States has become the world's largest producer of natural gas. In 2000, shale accounted for just 1 percent of U.S. natural-gas supply. By 2011, it was 25 percent, and by 2030 it could easily be 50 percent or more. Once burdened with some of the highest natural-gas prices in the world, the United States is now a low-cost producer of a fuel that provides Americans with roughly 25 percent of their electricity.
Hydrocarbons exist in plentiful amounts in the extremely low-permeability -- or tight -- shale beds that underlie much of the United States, but these resources were not economically recoverable. What has changed is our ability to get at them and extract them in a commercially viable and environmentally responsible fashion. Two companion technologies -- multi-staged hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling -- have made this possible...
Amy Ridenour |
May 3, 2012 at 10:46 PM 
As many of our readers know, the National Center for Public Policy Research fights crony capitalism and left-wing activities by some of America's biggest corporations.
One of the ways we do this is by attending shareholder meetings, where we often have the opportunity to speak directly to corporate CEOs, asking them to explain what they've been up to, and what they plan to do in the future.
Some of these meetings are contentious. At other times, corporate CEOs agree with us on a way forward that protects the investments of their shareholders while benefiting the public and protecting liberty.
Many times, victories are won for the free market.
Right now, the National Center for Public Policy Research is conducting an ambitious shareholder meeting schedule, but we need some help. We're looking for a conservative or free-market activist who owns shares in Target or Kohls (or both) and is willing to let us represent him or her at one or both of their shareholder meetings. Our goal is to ask a polite, public-policy oriented question on the shareholder's behalf from a free-market point of view. There is no cost to the shareholder, but you would have to give us permission and prove you own shares (any number). The shares in the case of Target would have to have been owned by April 16, 2012 and continuously held since then and through the June 8 shareholder meeting. In the case of Kohl's, the shares would have to have been purchased by March 7, 2012 and held continuously since then and through the Kohl's shareholder meeting on May 10.
If you are a shareholder in either Kohl's or Target and meet these requirements, and are willing to allow the National Center for Public Policy Research to represent you to ask a question, or are willing to discuss possibly doing so, please contact the National Center's General Counsel, Justin Danhof, by email at jdanhof@nationalcenter.org or by phone at (202) 543-4110.
David W. Almasi |
May 3, 2012 at 9:02 AM
Today is the National Day of Prayer, “an annual observance held on the first Thursday of May, inviting people of all faiths to pray for the nation.”
Events are being held across America, and Project 21 spokesman Demetrius Minor says the need for such an observance is more important than ever. Demetrius says:
The National Day of Prayer is a great time to reflect upon the many blessings that have been bestowed upon our nation and to seek the wisdom and guidance of Almighty God. As our country continues to face many challenges and uncertainties, it is important that we seek refuge and strength in our Creator. We also pray for God’s direction for our family, friends, elected leaders and our communities.
David W. Almasi |
May 1, 2012 at 12:40 PM Project 21 spokesman Stacy Swimp put together these comments about the radical celebration of May Day and the contradictions in their words and acts:
Protesters, many aligned with the Occupy Wall Street movement, seek to disrupt American business today in observance of International Workers’ Day (May Day).
Banks in Manhattan received suspicious (albeit non-toxic) powder in envelopes. Businesses were vandalized. Threats to disrupt commuters have been made.
Stacy Washington, a member of the Project 21 black leadership network, says: “The protest plan is to have major nationwide action on May Day to disrupt normal, everyday activities. It’s attention-seeking behavior at its worst. Like children throwing a tantrum, they should be ignored. Without a clear goal, or objective, Occupy protesters are a constant reminder of just what this country does not stand for: rape, destruction of private and public property, filth, violence and disrespect for the American way.”
It is ironic that protesters claim their chaos is “civil disobedience.” It’s ironic because they are commemorating past activities that promoted lawlessness and socialism.
May Day observes the 1886 Haymarket Riot in Chicago, which ignited after a protester threw dynamite at law enforcement officers who are keeping order during a general labor strike.
On that day, the cops were forced to protect themselves. Tragically, many of them — along with many of the protesters — lost their lives. In 1904, at the International Socialist Conference in Amsterdam called for worldwide annual protests to “stop work” and “demonstrate… for the class demands of the proletariat” in memory of the Haymarket violence.
Civil disobedience, in my opinion, is best defined as nonviolent protest of laws that are unjust. To the contrary, Occupy radicals — from the outset — were documented as being disruptive, disrespectful and malicious in their treatment of private property. Moreover, at least one woman has allegedly been sexually assaulted at an Occupy camp.
Rather than practicing civil obedience against unjust laws, Occupy protestors seem to show no consideration of the law whatsoever. And their actions have hardly been nonviolent.
Like the Haymarket protestors in Chicago, they have violently lashed out at their fellow Americans. Their cause is not a matter of civil disobedience, but is instead a matter of uncivil chaos.
Speaking on the threats and action of today’s Occupy protesters, Amy M. Ridenour — chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research — says: “People who claim to care about the welfare of the so-called 99 percent seem in fact to care only about calling attention to themselves. I realize at their advanced age it’s a longshot, but they should grow up. Blocking bridges and roads does nothing for the 99 percent except make them late for work.”
It is noteworthy that the socialists and trade unions created the May Day protests as an “International Workers’ Day.” In my mind, the forced unionism and socialism celebrated by the protesters is largely responsible for the unemployment of millions of American workers.
Union subsidies such as the Davis-Bacon Act cost American workers over 160,000 jobs per year while preventing equal access for all Americans to available jobs.
Forced unionism not only denies Americans a choice in employment, but it also violates citizens’ First Amendment right to dissent from union representation. It’s important to note that states that have “Right to Work” laws preventing forced union membership have higher employment rates than states that do not.
Occupy protestors should remember these things when protesting in support of workers’ rights.
Internet talk radio host Kira Davis, commenting on Big Labor’s collusion with Occupy Wall Street protesters, says: “The fact that the Occupy movement is now coordinating with unions and May Day is solid proof that it is not a grassroots effort at all but an astroturfed campaign to benefit bloated, wealthy unions. Union bosses want Occupiers — who despise capitalism — to stand with them as they strike for more money and benefits from their corporate employers. Apparently irony really is dead.”
Occupy Wall Street and Big Labor, despite what they may believe, are not functioning in support of workers. Instead, they are advancing a socialist agenda that has already caused higher unemployment rates and economic crisis.
A holiday is a time to celebrate. The Occupy agenda provides the American people with absolutely no reason to be jubilant.
Copyright National Center for Public Policy Research 501 Capitol Ct NE Washington DC 20002