Social Media
National Center Presents
Category Archives

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

Monthly Archives
Twitter feeds

You Can't Sugarcoat Distasteful Legislation

In a piece for Forbes, Dr. Henry I. Miller and I discuss campaigns to have the government further regulate what we eat and drink in a misguided effort to fight obesity.

When we’ve written about these issues in the past, big-government advocates have rebutted our conclusion by misstating our premise. So up front, we make it clear, that obesity is a serious health problem.  

Obesity is a public health time bomb in young as well as older Americans.  It affects 12.4 percent of children ages 2 to 5, 17 percent of those ages 6 to 11 and 17.6 percent of those ages 12 to 19.  And it is insidious.  It takes a toll on the joints, is associated with several risk factors for cardiovascular disease (including high blood pressure, abnormal lipid patterns, and Type 2 diabetes), and is linked to cancers of the esophagus, breast, uterus, colon, rectum, kidney, pancreas, thyroid, and gallbladder.

There’s no doubt about it. So now, the question is what “we” should do about it. And who are the “we” that the activists want to do things. I once thought “we” are the same people as the “they” in “they say” it’s dangerous to swim after eating, or that Mikey from the Life cereal commercial died in a Pop Rocks accidentBut it turns out, “we” means the government.

But is curbing obesity the responsibility of the government?  The activists who constitute the self-appointed food police think so, and they are not shy about making their radical views known.  Their extreme proposals and hyperbolic rhetoric demonize big food producers and characterize food marketers as the worst sort of hucksters and profiteers.

Here’s how it works. 

The activists argue that obesity rates are sky-rocketing and that this growing public health emergency calls for extreme measures.  However, when the CDC says that childhood obesity has plateaued, and that rates have declined 43 percent among 2-5 year olds in the last decade, the nanny-staters seamlessly change their tune: “See, what we’ve been doing is working.”

Now, there’s legislation in the works that further advances the activist agenda.

Nanny-staters must love California’s SB 1000, a bill passed by the State Senate that will be considered by the Assembly this month.  It would mandate obesity, diabetes and tooth decay warning labels on sugary soft drinks.  But the proposed legislation is unscientific and inconsistent in so many ways. Why would the warning apply only to beverages?

Scientific evidence indicates that liquid calories are not inherently different than solid calories when it comes to weight gain.  As USDA’s Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee reported in 2010, “In general, if total calorie content is held constant, there is little support for any effects on energy intake and body weight due to the calories consumed either as liquid or solid… . Thus, Americans are advised to pay attention to the calorie content of the food or beverage consumed, regardless of whether it is a liquid or solid.  Calories are the issue in either case.”  If activists reject scientific evidence, why should we accede to their demands?

Another inconsistency is that the bill requires warning labels for only an arbitrary subset of beverages.  This anomaly is obvious if we compare, for example, a 12 oz Starbucks Java Chip Frappuccino with a regular carbonated soda of the same size.  The former has 330 calories versus 140 for the soda, 13 grams of fat compared to none for the soda, and 46 grams of total sugars versus 39 for the soda – yet because it is milk-based, the Frappuccin would be exempt from the warning label. You don’t have to be a rocket nutritionist to know that this makes no sense.

As it relates to tooth decay, fermentable carbohydrates — including sugars — are the substrate the bacteria in your mouth use to produce the acid that can result in tooth decay.  Fermentable carbs are found in a wide variety of foods — not just sugar sweetened beverages — including but not limited to bananas, raisins and bread.  But tooth decay does not result from just the presence of fermentable carbs, bacteria and a suitable substrate (tooth).  The fourth important factor is time — time in the mouth that the tooth is exposed to the carbs and bacteria.  Thus, the importance of good oral hygiene.

In order to pass these types of laws, the activists use some pretty outrageous rhetorical devices which are unsupported by the science.

The food police subject us to the constant drumbeat of warnings that sugar is the new tobacco and that, therefore, we need warning labels, marketing restrictions and heavy excise taxes to protect consumers from making choices the activists think are unwise.

 But hyperbole about the dangers of food is in vogue these days, so why compare sugar only to tobacco if you can stigmatize it further  as being “just like” heroin?  That’s what best-selling author and advocate Dr. Mark Hyman says in the propaganda film, “Fed Up,” trying to shock viewers with the claim that “you are going become an addict.”  Should we be dispensing methadone to quell the craving for a Big Gulp or a Hershey’s bar?

 “Fed Up” is a good example of slick propagandizing about obesity.  Katie Couric, Laurie David and the lopsided panel of experts they interviewed in the film want us to believe it is an unbiased and factually balanced portrayal of the causes of obesity in the United States.  It is anything but.

 Food police activists love the film — and not only because they all seem to be in it.  “Fed-Up” advances Freedhoff’s thesis that obesity is caused by industry and government, while “personal responsibility” is just a canard cooked up by “big food” to seduce us into becoming helpless Twinkie-munching, soda-swilling zombies.

 Whether it’s California’s proposed warning labels, New York City’s ban on large sodas (currently in litigation), or campaigns to restrict marketing as if food were the same as tobacco (or heroin), activists need the public to buy into the narrative that no matter what happens, ethically-challenged industry will always be part of the problem rather than a potential part of the solution.  They believe the answer is ever more government intrusion and coercion.

We aren’t anarchists. We believe there is a proper place for govenment here. But it’s in advancing food science not political science.

There is, indeed a role for government policy making, but it’s not intrusive, punitive, arbitrary, gratuitous regulation; it’s allowing market forces to stimulate the production of a wide variety of innovative foods, from which consumers can choose.  SB 1000 is yet another example of H.L. Mencken’s observation that there is an easy solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong. 

*** Update: At least some legislators are listening. The California soda warning label bill, SB 1000 failed in the assembly.  


New HHS Study Provides More Evidence ObamaCare Headed For A Death Spiral

A new report from the Dept. of Health and Human Services purportedly showing that the ObamaCare exchanges are improving cost and choice inadvertently provides more data that the exchanges are heading toward an insurance death spiral.  (If you need an explanation of a death spiral, see the definition at the end of this post).

As I’ve noted before:

[Exchange] enrollees’ choice of insurance suggests that the [insurance] pool may be sicker than is optimal for an insurance pool. Sixty-two percent of exchange enrollees have chosen a silver plan. For enrollees at or below 250 percent FPL, silver plans tend to offer the most coverage for the lowest price. For persons under 250 percent FPL, ObamaCare offers help with copays and deductibles, but only if the consumer chooses a silver plan. The actuarial value for a silver plan is 70 percent (that is, a silver plan must, on average, cover 70 percent of a policyholder’s medical claims), but when the subsidies for cost-sharing are included, the actuarial value rises to between 73 and 94 percent. As one writer notes, “Why would someone opt for a silver-level plan over a cheaper bronze or catastrophic-level plan? The most plausible explanation is that the enrollee anticipates incurring significant medical expenses over the coming year, which is to say that he’s not healthy.” 

Thus far the only data we’ve had to support that theory is the inordinate popularity of silver plans among exchange enrollees.  According to last HHS enrollment report, 65 percent of enrollees chose a silver plan.

But today’s HHS report contains this very revealing table:


Notice that the largest average monthly premium subsidy (“tax credit” in HHS’s lingo) is for those who enrolled in silver plans.  That’s telling because bigger subsidies go to those with lower incomes.  If silver plans have the largest average premium subsidy, then those with lower incomes (i.e., below 250 percent FPL) have chosen silver plans at a higher rate than any other plan.  And they have done so at what looks to be a substantially higher rate—the average premium subsidy for silver plans of $276 is more than $40 higher than for any other plan type.

This is most substantial evidence we have yet that the exchanges have attracted a lot of less-than-healthy folks and that the exchanges are likely headed for a death spiral.

Death Spiral:  A death spiral occurs when the young and healthy drop out of the “insurance pool.” This leads to “adverse selection” in which insurance is primarily attractive to those who tend to be older and sicker. If the insurance pool is comprised largely of older and sicker people, then insurance prices naturally rise to cover their costs. That rate increase results in even more young and healthy people dropping their insurance, leaving the pools even older and sicker than before, and so forth.


IRS Says It Can't Find Still More Emails - And It Kept This Fact Secret from Investigators for Months


Turns out, the Internal Revenue Service has been doling out the bad news slowly when it comes to its ability to retain the emails of employees suspected of being up to no good.

From the House Ways and Means Committee today:

Today, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Charles Boustany Jr., M.D. (R-LA) revealed that the Committee's early work into "lost" IRS emails show the problem is much bigger than the IRS initially admitted to.

In addition to Lois Lerner's emails, the IRS cannot produce records from six other IRS employees involved in the targeting of conservative groups. One of those figures is Nikole Flax, who served as Chief of Staff to Steve Miller, who at the time of the targeting was Deputy Commissioner and would later serve as Acting Commissioner of the IRS - a position from which he was fired for his role in the targeting of conservative groups. The timeframe for which Ms. Flax's communications are purportedly unrecoverable covers when the Washington, DC office wrote and directed the Cincinnati field office to send abusive questionnaires, including inappropriate demands for donor information, to conservative groups.

Camp and Boustany also uncovered that the IRS has been keeping secret for months the fact that the Agency lost these critical records. Ways and Means investigators have confirmed that the Agency first knew of the destroyed emails as early as February 2014 - nearly three months prior to newly installed Commissioner John Koskinen telling the Committee the IRS would produce all of Lois Lerner's emails...

Read it all here.


Supreme Court’s Important Unfinished Business

As is the tradition at the U.S. Supreme Court, justices are leaving the release of their decisions on many of the biggest cases of the term until the very end.

After today’s three opinions, there are 14 rulings still left to be revealed before the Court’s term ostensibly ends on June 30.

Among the cases to be decided include the ObamaCare mandate forcing religious businessowners to compromise their faith, the President’s probable unconstitutional use of recess appointment power, free speech around abortion clinics, coercive union fees and police power to search cellphones.

Currently, there are three more scheduled days — the remaining Mondays in June and this coming Thursday — scheduled to release these opinions.

Horace Cooper, the co-chairman of the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network, noted this remaining large parcel of decisions could contain some of the most important rulings in recent memory:

Over the next two weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court will issue rulings in some of the most critical cases to come before the highest court in the land.

The cases that remain offer the American people an opportunity to understand many of the basic principles of our constitutional system.

From the power of the presidency, the scope of religious rights of corporations to whether police can confiscate your cellphone and read its contents, the U.S. Supreme Court is ultimately going to reaffirm our fundamental rights or push us in a post-constitutional direction.

While most Americans can’t name these individual justices, they will likely have remarkable influence on our liberties and freedoms.

top photo credit: iStockPhoto


3 Reasons Obama's University of California at Irvine Commencement Address on Climate Change Was Inappropriate

ObamaClimateSpeechUCIrvineCommencement061414It was inappropriate for President Obama to use his commencement address at the University of California at Irvine for a divisive speech promoting his own views on climate change. Here's why:

  • He hijacked other people's commencement to promote his own views on a contentious issue, no doubt leaving some of the graduates who hold differing views angry and frustrated on an occasion that is supposed to be in their honor.

  • The leader of the country should not be mocking its citizenry, and if an exception is made to this rule it should be either good-natured ribbing or reserved for partisan events where said leader is speaking as the head of his political party, not as leader of the entire country.

  • If President Obama nonetheless was determined to break the above rules of etiquette, tradition and propriety, he should have done a better job of it. Parts of his speech made no sense, and nothing he said was likely to persuade a catastrophic global warming theory fence-sitter to the president's point of view. Thus, the President insulted people, sowed division and hijacked an important ceremony in other people's lives for no gain to anyone, including himself and his agenda.

A few notes on the content of the President's remarks:

The President said: "So the question is not whether we need to act. The overwhelming judgment of science, accumulated and measured and reviewed over decades, has put that question to rest."

Response: Proper science doesn't rest on "judgments," even multiple judgments that someone somehow "measures." It finds proof.

The President said: "The 18 warmest years on record have all happened since you graduates were born."

Response: Our temperature records are very short, and a 16-year period of warming ended about the time today's high school graduates were born. The President could just as accurately said there hasn't been any warming since Bill Clinton was President and that one of his own agencies released data this month showing the United States has cooled slightly over the last decade, but that didn't fit his political agenda.

The President said: "Out West, firefighters brave longer, harsher wildfire seasons; states have to budget for that. Mountain towns worry about what smaller snowpacks mean for tourism. Farmers and families at the bottom worry about what it will mean for their water. In cities like Norfolk and Miami, streets now flood frequently at high tide. Shrinking icecaps have National Geographic making the biggest change in its atlas since the Soviet Union broke apart."

Response: If this is the best evidence the President has for the catastrophic global warming theory, it's a wonder he can say he believes in it with a straight face. Wildfires are affected by many circumstances, and did the President not notice that it snowed a lot last winter? Sea levels have been rising for thousands of years, and the fall of the Soviet Union was only 23 years ago, not even a blink in climate terms. And, by the way, global sea ice is approaching record high levels. Give it up, Mr. President, if this is all you've got.

Columnist Mark Sappenfield of the Christian Science Monitor wrote Sunday that 43 percent of all Americans don't agree with President Obama on climate change, and so with this speech, "Obama is doing more than blowing a raspberry [at] a recalcitrant Congress. He's poking fun at almost half of America." Mr. Sappenfield is exactly right.


Eric Cantor "Became an Ideological Mystery" - And That Was a Problem When It Came to the VRAA


"Cantor became an ideological mystery..."

Those five words leapt out at me when I read James Hohmann and Jake Sherman's "Behind Eric Cantor’s campaign meltdown" in Politico.

Conservatives and other non-racist Americans have been trying for months to get a clear and definitive answer as to where Majority Leader Cantor stood on the Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2014, legislation introduced by Republican Rep. James Sensenbrenner (WI) and ultra-liberals Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT).

The legislation would change federal voting rights protections so that non-Hispanic white people formally receive fewer voting rights protections than other voters under federal law.

In the past, the goal of voting rights laws (such as the famous Voting Rights Act of 1965) was to protect everyone equally, regardless of race or national origin.

Cantor apparently was talking with liberals about his views of the legislation, but conservatives were left to guess. That's not the way it should work with an ostensibly conservative majority leader.

Bonus: If you haven't seen the video in which James O'Keefe of Project Veritas asks Rep. Sensenbrenner (:53 in the video) about the provision in the legislation singling out white voters for reduced voting rights protection, it's below, and quite instructive.


Cohn's Excuse For VA Failure

Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic has an interesting analysis of the Veterans Administration scandal that runs 12 paragraphs. He should have stopped at 11.  

His final paragraph links VA failure to larger problems in the U.S. health care system:

Of course, it’s worth remembering that some of the problems veterans are having right now have very little to do with the VA and a whole lot to do with American health care. As Phil Longman, author of Best Care Anywhere, noted in his own congressional testimony last week, long waits for services are actually pretty common in the U.S.even for people with serious medical conditionsbecause the demand for services exceeds the supply of physicians. (“It took me two-and-a-half years to find a primary care physician in Northwest Washington who was still taking patients,” he noted.) The difference is that the VA actually sets guidelines for waiting times and monitors compliance, however poorly. That doesn’t happen in the private sector. The victims of those waits suffer, too. They just don’t get the same attention. 

The private sector has long waits similar to the VA? You mean there are health-care organizations out there that have something comparable to 57,000 people on a waiting list and 64,000 who can’t even get on the list? It’s hard to take that very seriously.

Here’s another reason it shouldn’t be taken seriously.  The most recent VA audit released just the other day states that “Critical insights came from asking front-line staff members to rate the degree to which certain factors interfered with timely access to care. The highest scored single barrier or challenge was lack of provider slots, closely followed by the peculiarities of the fourteen day goal.”

Lack of provider slots is likely the result of a lack of providers.  One way of determining whether VA’s lack of providers is due to broader health care forces or something endemic to the VA is to look at the ratio of enrollees to doctors in the VA compared to the U.S. population at large.  The VA ratio is 1 doctor for every 637 enrollees, while for the U.S. population it is about 1 to 381.  (The math for all of this will be put at the end for you to review.) 

That’s not the type of difference that can be attributed to broader health care forces in American.  Rather, it is, the result of bureaucracy.  Of the 281,651 employees in the Veterans Health Administration, about 14,000, or barely 5 percent, are physicians.  Like any bureaucracy, it has surely become top heavy with administrators—that’s where the promotions, power and pay raises tend to be. Furthermore, a bureaucracy is probably not a place many doctors find a joyful place to work.  Upon completing four years of college and then four years of medical school, people don’t usually say to themselves, “You know, I’d love to work at a place with lots of rules and regulations.”  That likely accounts for why the VA has 400 vacancies for primary-care doctors. 

Whatever access problems exist in the private sector pale in comparison to the VA.  The VA doesn’t get its money by attracting patients, leaving bureaucrats there free to pursue their own interests even if it comes at the expense of the care veterans receive.  To suggest that the VA’s problems stem for larger problems in the health system is silly.

MATH:  There are about 8.92 million enrollees in the Veterans Health Administration and just over 14,000 doctors.  8,920,000 divided by 14,000 is 637.  The population of the U.S. is about 318,223,800.  The number of practicing doctors in the U.S. is 834,769.   318,223,800 divided by 834,769 is 381.


Feds Can Fine You $25,000-$250,000 for Putting Wrong Information on ObamaCare Signup Forms


Whoops! If you are one of those sneaky people who thought you could get a higher ObamaCare subsidy by lying a teensy little bit (or more) about your income when you signed up for ObamaCare, you'll want to come clean and start being honest.

It seems there's a a $250,000 penalty for intentionally understating or overstating your income on ObamaCare forms.

If you made an innocent mistake on your forms, you can rest easy: the penalty for innocent mistakes is only $25,000.

Some say the government is unlikely to penalize many people for improper forms, but that's just a guess, and justice under this administration appears to be selective. Also worth noting: You don't get a trial. The Department of Health and Human Services decides if you are guilty and gives you sixty days to appeal a notice from them that you are guilty. If you do appeal HHS then decides if you are right -- or they are. If you are thinking that's not a very objective way to handle things, you're right.


Government Teachers Unions Lose a Round - and Obama Administration Applauds

Students Matter infographicStudents Matter infographic

Conservatives riveted to their TV and computer screens tonight to watch sitting House Majority Leader Eric Canter lose the primary election portion of his House re-election race to an underfunded challenger may have missed another bit of astonishing news: A California judge has ruled against the California teachers union and the State of California in a "when can public teachers be fired" case, and the Obama Administration is applauding the ruling.

The case, Vergara v. California, was brought by students who argued that California's teacher tenure laws had deprived them of a quality education by leaving bad teachers who deserved to be fired in the classroom.

The judge in his ruling said in part: "This Court finds that both students and teachers are unfairly, unnecessarily, and for no legally cognizable reason (let alone a compelling one), disadvantaged by the current [teacher tenure law]." (Emphasis in the original.)

The judge also observed in his ruling that under current law "it could take anywhere from two to almost ten years and cost $50,000 to $450,000 or more" to fire "grossly ineffective teachers." He noted that one trial witness testified that it actually is "impossible" to fire such teachers.

The judge also said poor and/or minority students were especially hurt by the state's teacher tenure law because the poor teachers were disproportionately likely to be assigned to teach at schools in poor areas.

The students were supported in their lawsuit by the non-profit group Students Matter. Of the lawsuit's intent, Students Matter wrote on its website:

Californians shouldn't have to choose: we can create an education system that gives every child a passionate, motivating and effective teacher and gives effective teachers the respect and rewarding careers they deserve. A statewide lawsuit filed by nine brave kids, Vergara v. California challenges the laws that handcuff schools from giving every student an equal opportunity to learn from effective teachers.

California law, backed by the unions, requires that when teachers are laid off, that they be laid off in reverse order of seniority. Education advocates argued that school systems should have the legal ability to lay off the lower-performing teachers ahead of higher-performing teachers, and that it should be easier for the schools to fire poor teachers.

The Los Angeles Times' Stephen Ceasar and Howard Blume quoted the Obama Administration's Secretary of Education applauding the ruling:

United States Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said the decision gives California the opportunity to build a new framework for the teaching profession that protects both the rights of teachers and students.

"The students who brought this lawsuit are, unfortunately, just nine out of millions of young people in America who are disadvantaged by laws, practices and systems that fail to identify and support our best teachers and match them with our neediest students. Today's court decision is a mandate to fix these problems."

Writing in the New York Times, Jennifer Medina explained the significance of the ruling for students outside of California:

Both sides expect the case to generate more like it in cities and states around the country. David Welch, a Silicon Valley technology magnate, spent several million dollars to create the organization that brought the Vergara case to court -- Students Matter -- and paid for a team of high-profile lawyers, including Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., who helped win a Supreme Court decision striking down California's same-sex marriage ban. While the next move is still unclear, the group is considering filing lawsuits in New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Oregon, New Mexico, Idaho and Kansas as well as other states with powerful unions where legislatures have defeated attempts to change teacher tenure laws.

Students Matter has extensive additional information about the case here.


Benghazi: They Knew What They Were Getting Into?

AirplaneMoviePoster"Asked by [ABC's Diane] Sawyer why [U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris] Stevens was in Benghazi even though his own diary noted that there were 'never-ending security threats' there, [former Secretary of State Hillary] Clinton said he was there 'of his own choosing'"... apparently trying to shift responsibility for his death away from herself and onto Stevens.

Kind of reminds me of this clip from the movie Airplane!...


Health Care Odd & Ends: Exchange Edition (aka, Bad News Edition).

Although little of the news about the ObamaCare exchanges is good, let’s see if we still can’t find some humor in it.

1. Two Million Discrepancies.  Of the 5.4 million people who signed up on the federal exchanges, about 2.1 million (or 39 percent) have information in their applications that does not match up with what the government has on record.  Of those, 1.2 million are related to income reported by the enrollees which could result in an insurance subsidy that was either too larger or too small.  The other 966,000 have a discrepancy with their immigration or citizenship status.  

But not to worry.  The Dept. of Health and Human Services “believes that most of the errors are small and will be quickly resolved.”


See, told you we’d find something funny.

2. Swell.  “Officials at the Connecticut public health exchange that administers Obamacare reported on Saturday that they are unable to determine whether personal information found in a backpack on a Hartford city street Friday was related to an effort to steal personal information of enrollees of the exchange.”  More here and here.

3. Specialty Drugs and Politics. In May of last year, I noted that expensive specialty drugs were not given much coverage in ObamaCare exchange plans.  Thus the very ill would be exposed to large out-of-pocket costs since specialty drugs are usually taken by patients who are quite sick. This seems like an odd results since ObamaCare was, in theory, supposed to protect such people.  But if you looked at it from a political perspective, it made a lot of sense:

…one of the drawbacks of any government-run health-care system is that the care you get will depend in part on how much political power you have.  This is particularly bad news for those who are really sick.  They tend to lack political clout because: 1. The very sick are relatively few in number, which means they amount to a very limited number of voters, too limited to have much impact on elections; and 2. They are too sick to engage in the type of political activities such as organizing, protesting, etc., necessary to bring about change in health care policy.

People taking speciality drugs amounted to a small number of voters, too small to have much impact on elections. Further, since they are sick, “they probably aren’t organizing get-out-the-vote drives, protests, lobbying efforts, etc.”

A new report from Avalere reveals that the politics of it shows up in the cost-sharing part of the exchanges. Exchange enrollees who make less that 250 percent of the federal poverty level and choose a silver plan are supposed to receive help with the plan’s cost-sharing.  However, the subsidy to help with the cost-sharing goes to the insurance companies.  John Graham explains that the Avalere report shows that few insurance companies use the subsidy to cover the cost-sharing of specialty drugs:

…the plans apply more of the subsidy to the deductible, somewhat less likely to apply it to specialist charges, and much less likely to apply it to the most expensive tier 4 drugs on the formulary. What this means is that generally healthy patients who go to see their primary-care physician occasionally, but need no specialist care or specialty prescriptions, are most likely to benefit from the cost-sharing reductions. Those who need specialist care and, especially,  tier 4 drugs will be less likely to benefit.

This blog has written frequently about how ObamaCare motivates health plans to seek out healthy enrollees and shun sick ones. Avalere’s latest report demonstrates how this is magnified for low-income enrollees. 

Why are insurers able to get away with this?  For starters, lower-income people don’t vote at rates as high as middle-class or upper-income folks.  Lower-income sick people probably vote at even lower rates.  Since such people won’t be putting much if any pressure on their elected officials, they will be exposed to large out-of-pocket costs for their health care needs.

Full Avalere report here.


A Salute to Those Who Bravely Went Ashore Seven Decades Ago

Much love and respect goes out to those who served 70 years ago yesterday in the invasion of Normandy and the beginning of the liberation of Europe from Michael Dozier, a veteran and member of the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network:

Imagine being on a ship whose walls do not allow you to see over them.  It slowly creeps toward land.  The closer you get, the louder the thunder gets.

But it’s not thunder.  It is rifle fire and mortar explosions engulfing the place you’re about to occupy.  You are 19-years-old and your commanding officer is 22.

You’re afraid because you see the smoke rising above your boat.  You hear the screams of your fellow soldiers who are laying dying on shore.

You look around at your fellow squad members and watch as they clutch their rifles in one hand and crosses in the other.

You look into their eyes and see the fear that is aggressively overcoming you as well.  You pray as your boat wheels touch solid ground.  The dreaded time has come.

You pray for courage.  You want another minute, but you know that your battle buddy depends on you as much as you do on him.  Your squad depends on you all to do your job.

Your commanding officer yells out orders, but you can’t hear them.  Your other senses have taken over, and you smell the death that surrounds you.  You hear the agony of the wounded, and you taste the sulfur in the air.

It is time.

You think of home.  You remember your high school graduation, your first kiss.  You see your mother’s face smiling in the bright sunlight.  You remember how proud your dad was when you told him you would be serving your country.

The time has come.

You hear the creaking of the sprockets that will lower the landing platform.  Overhead, you see rounds of gunfire zip by.  You close your eyes and hope that, when you open them, you will be sitting at home eating a piece of your grandmother’s homemade apple pie.  As you open your eyes, reality sets in.

You are out of time.

The boat rocks as the ramp is lowered.  Sweat invades your eye sockets – or are those tears that have involuntarily presented themselves.  The ramp opens.  Instinctively, you charge forward.

Your time is now.

It is June 6, 1944.  You are on the shores of Normandy.  This is World War II, and you are a 19-year-old United States soldier who is ready to sacrifice your life for your country.

You are a true hero.

God bless our soldiers and God bless the United States of America.


Amy Ridenour Discusses EPA's Anti-Coal Rules, Bergdahl Deal

Proposed Obama Administration rules to regulate coal are said to help stop global warming by its leftist supporters.  The problem is that there hasn’t been any global warming since at least when Bill Clinton was still in the White House, and this fact has been verified by many different scientific surveys.

On the 6/5/14 edition of the “Rick Amato Show” on the One America Network, National Center Chairman Amy Ridenour said the left continues to cling to the global warming argument because it “gives them an excuse, through the government, to seize control of our energy policy.”

On the topic of the Bowe Bergdahl exchange deal with the terrorists, Amy said that this matter has become a constitutional crisis made worse by the fact that President Obama ignored a law that he signed into law.


VA Scandal, Bergdahl Controversy Can’t Hide Poor Obama Economy

It’s more of the same when it comes to jobless numbers.  And that’s not good.

The federal unemployment rate, which was released today, remained the same at 6.3 percent for the month of May.  Fewer jobs, however, were created — 71,000 fewer — than during the previous month.

The percentage of people participating in the labor force also remained unchanged.

But while the April and May jobless numbers were relatively unchanged, the quality of life in America can definitely be observed as in decline.  All around, there is a sense of foreboding.  There is misery about the present and trepidation about the future.

For example, a new poll of college seniors commissioned by the Young America’s Foundation found that 51 percent those soon to be in the workforce are “nervous” about life after graduation.  The fears are justified, since 56 percent reported not having obtained a single job interview thus far and 44 percent are planning to move back in with their parents after graduation.

And 37 percent of graduating seniors don’t believe they will end up better off than their parents as has generally been the case in the modern era.

As he does regularly when the federal unemployment figures are announced, Project 21 member Derryck Green gives his analysis of the state of the economy under the stewardship of the Obama Administration.

And Derryck is very skeptical of the suggestion made by some that the American economy is actually in recovery:

Bad news for the Obama Administration related to the Veterans Affairs scandal, a tepid commencement speech at West Point that was coldly received by its graduates and the extremely questionable decision to trade five high-level terrorists from Gitmo for “missing” soldier Bowe Bergdahl seems to have — for now — distracted the nation from ongoing troubling economic news.

But none of these things change the reality that a country forced to depend on leftist policies for wealth creation and economic growth won’t create wealth and won’t grow.

Such as appears to be the case in America right now.

According to the federal National Bureau of Economic Research, the nation is now into the sixth year of a supposed economic recovery.  But the economy seems to embody anything but recovery.

The new jobless rate, as measured by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, held at 6.3 percent in May.   ADP, a private company, announced prior to the government’s release that they found only 179,000 private sector jobs were added in May.  The BLS said 217,000 jobs were created, which was still down by 71,000 from April.

Despite an appearance that the unemployment rate remained relatively steady over the last two months, May was instead yet another month in which job creation didn’t keep up with population growth.

This is economic recovery?

The labor force participation rate remained unchanged at 62.8 percent, keeping America at a nearly 30-year low.

Speaking of those left out of the workforce, the BLS’s alternative U-6 rate — the rate that includes all those looking and those who are underemployed or have given up looking for work — fell only slightly to 12.2 percent.  That means the total unemployment rate, the real and all-encompassing unemployment rate according to many economic experts, is around twice what the government claims and most of the media reports about.

This is economic recovery?

As it pertains to Hispanics and blacks, jobless numbers rose to 7.7 percent and fell slightly to 11.5 percent, respectively.

Black unemployment has a history of being roughly twice the national rate.  Unfortunately, the black employment rate hasn’t “rallied” nearly as quickly or effectively as it has for the country overall.  A reason?  Blacks have continued to diligently look for work longer than the national prospecting average, which means they’re counted as being part of the labor force for a longer period of time.

This extended duration of prospecting is partially responsible for the perpetually high unemployment rate, including, the disparity between the black/white unemployment rates.

This is economic recovery?

And the joblessness crisis is just one of America’s economic maladies.  The growth of the nation’s gross domestic product during the first quarter was recently downgraded from 0.1 percent to -1 percent.  This means that the economy actually contracted during the last quarter.  This is the second such economic contraction in three years — the other being the first quarter of 2011, when the economy “grew” at -1.3 percent.

Earlier this month, when addressing the most recent economic contraction before the congressional Joint Economic Committee, Federal Reserve Board Chairwoman Janet Yellin told lawmakers that she viewed the contraction as a “pause” in growth.  A pause?  A pause would be zero growth.  A percentage-point shrinkage of the GDP isn’t a pause.

Only a progressive can walk backwards while claiming to be moving forward.

In addition to the economic contraction, the Wall Street Journal reported that worker productivity also plunged 3.2 percent in the first quarter.  Economists continue to blame the harsh winter for the drop in worker productivity and contraction of the GDP, but drops such as these cannot just be a freak byproduct of the weather.

This is economic recovery?

The sixth year of President Obama’s prosaic economic recovery also sees stagnant wages and increased school loan debt which now collectively totals over a trillion dollars.  People with increased debt are partially responsible for the low volume of mortgage applications.

Many of those who can’t afford to purchase homes are the often-cited Millenials. With increasing school debt, less-than-perfect credit, tougher qualifications for lending approval — combined with the inability to find work — Millenials are being prevented from productively participating in and contributing to the economy.  That’s why probably a third of Millenials are currently living with their parents.

The present situation affecting Millenials doesn’t inspire much optimism for the future of our economy.  But it’s not just Millenials who are having a rough go at finding work.

According to the Labor Department’s own statistics, more than 10 million men aren’t in the labor force.  This means they’re not working or looking for work.  This is a record high.

Additionally, there are 3 million men who are counted as being in the labor force but who aren’t employed.  These are men who would work if they could find a job.  That’s 13 million men negatively affected by the recovery who would otherwise be participating and contributing to the economy.

And people think there’s a war on women.

This, apparently, is economic recovery.

To give more insight into just how bad the national apathy is regarding our current economic picture, a recent poll commissioned by Express Employment Professionals showed that 47 percent of unemployed people have completely given up the hope of finding a job.  In a CNN poll, 60 percent said that their version of the American Dream was unachievable.

Can Obama do something advantageous for the country to spur the economic engine, if only for optics?  Forget it.

Obama’s new, congressionally-circumventing EPA regulations that claim to reduce carbon emissions over the next 15 years will actually reduce the presence of the coal industry.  It is also expected to wipe out over 200,000 jobs, cost the economy upwards of $50 billion dollars a year and increase electricity rates — fulfilling Obama’s assertion that “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

This isn’t economic recovery under his energy agenda by any stretch of the imagination.

The past six years have demonstrated a clear, unadulterated truth.  From the moment Obama sat down in the Oval Office, the well-being of the economy was never really a priority of his domestic agenda.

Instead, Obama eagerly sought to implement as much of his expensive ideology as he could.  From the stimulus bill, to investing in “green” energy, to increasing taxes and nurturing class warfare and entitlements and government dependency.  To his financial reform bill and endless new pages of EPA regulations, the President apparently never intended to resurrect the economy.

Don’t expect him to start now.

top and bottom photo credits:


Paying Respects to President Reagan on the Tenth Anniversary of his Death

Reagan1980CampaignPhotoWesternHatWjpgThis is a re-post of a post I made on this blog on June 9, 2004.

Our family paid its respects to President Reagan today.

It's not very easy for four-year-old children to understand that a giant has left us, but as Ronald Reagan bequeathed to our children and millions of others a safer, more prosperous world, he deserved what thank you they could give him.

In this case, it was by hanging around a hot sidewalk at Constitution and Louisiana Avenues, essentially, at the bottom of the literal Capitol hill, for a couple of hours and generally behaving well despite a lack of toys and entertainments. And, I hope, by beginning to get a little germ of understanding that there is such a thing as a United States of America; that good men and women protect it, and great men and women protect it especially well.

Before we left, I showed the children the cover of Time magazine, with its 1980 campaign picture of Reagan. I explained that we were going to say "thank you, President Reagan."

By some coincidence, on Friday evening our son Christopher had taken an interest in watching a Ronald Reagan video containing testimonials and speech clips. Our family had no advance word of the President's then-approaching death. But Christopher saw the video in its case and wanted to view it. I explained that wasn't a cartoon, but as he still wanted to see it, so I plopped him on the kitchen counter and he plugged it into our little kitchen TV/VCR. He watched the whole thing -- about twenty minutes -- much to my surprise. His twin, Jonathan, came by and wanted to look at the tape box, which contained a photo of Reagan with a horse. I pointed out both; he seemed to be interested in looking at Reagan.

Perhaps children know things we adults don't, because the next day Christopher wanted to watch the Reagan video again. After he did, the video popped out, and the Fox News Channel announced that the President was gravely ill. We didn't know whether to believe it, but by the time we came back home from an outing with the kids, we learned it had, indeed, been true. President Reagan was dead.

So, on the day of his funeral possession to the Capitol, armed with memories of video and photographic images, holding three small U.S. flags their father had bought for them, and remembering (maybe) my explanation that we were going to town to say "thank you, Ronald Reagan," three little children and some somber adults went to pay our respects as the President's caisson traveled from the Washington Monument to the Capitol building.

It was hot, and crowded, but we heard no one complain. No one talked about politics, either, or much that was specific about why they had come. Everyone was friendly, but somber. A woman next to me wearing a shirt that made it clear that she works for a labor union spoke to me about how she wouldn't miss the opportunity to pay respects to President Reagan for anything. As a Reaganite, that's not what I am used to hearing from professional labor union organizers. I wondered at her sentiments, but appreciated them.

It got increasingly crowded as the time for the procession drew near, but there was no pushing. Everyone respected those who had arrived earliest, and stayed in the spots they had found open when they arrived. The procession drew close. Police officers on motorcycles and vehicles; military men and women in formation; black cars whose occupants' identities we could only guess at. A band marched by. Funny, I can't remember what the music was, now.

Then the airplanes flew overhead. Loud, almost directly above us, perpendicular to the procession route. The missing man formation.

Then the caisson containing the President's mortal remains. The honor guard; the horses, the caisson itself. The casket seemed smaller than I remembered Reagan being; my husband later said the same. He must have just seemed bigger.

Then a horse, sans rider; the rider's boots on facing backward.

As the caisson approached and passed, the crowd was silent and respectful. Only children -- not just ours -- made sounds and were shushed by their parents. To paraphrase what a surgeon -- a Democrat, if I remember correctly -- reportedly told Reagan the day the President was shot: today, we're all Republicans. Just not necessarily in the partisan sense.

I had told the children we were there to say thank you to President Reagan, but when the time came, I forgot to prompt them. Katie remembered. As the caisson was perhaps ten feet past us, her little voice floated out from her perch on Daddy's shoulders: "Thank you, Ronald Reagan."

When the caisson was out of sight, applause broke out. It lasted a while. As applause goes, it was rather somber. I think people were aware that this was a funeral, and did not wish to behave as if it were a hockey game -- and yet, they wanted to do something to say goodbye.

As the crowd disbursed, we walked along. I kept expecting to see someone I knew. I worked in the Reagan '80 campaign; I've run a conservative Capitol Hill organization for 22 years; we were at the foot of the Capitol building where I know so many staffers. However, except for people who work for or with our own organization, I didn't recognize anyone.

We were still among the crowds when we heard the cannons begin the 21-gun salute. People around us stopped, and turned the face the Capitol. We couldn't see it through the trees, but the sound was loud and clear. We counted, silently. No one moved until it was over.

On the walk back to the car, David and I compared notes. We'd both expected the sight of the caisson to be the most moving part for us. We found that it hadn't been. Instead, that moment came while we were watching the missing man formation. The jets flew by, wave after wave. Then, in the last wave, one jet separated, and flew up and away.

The cloud cover was low. As we watched, the jet vanished into the sky.


If ObamaCare Saves Lives, It Does So Very Inefficiently

Referring to a recent study about RomneyCare in Massachusetts that finds a link between insurance status and mortality, The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn saysit makes Obamacare look good.”  In fact, it shows that ObamaCare is a grossly inefficient way to reduce mortality.

Entitled “Changes in Mortality After Massachusetts Health Care Reform,” the study compared certain counties in Massachusetts with other counties in the U.S. with similar demographic characteristics both before and after RomneyCare. It found that after RomneyCare, Massachusetts counties had an average mortality rate 2.9 percent lower relative to the other counties.  The authors find that about every “830 adults gaining health insurance [prevented] 1 death per year.”

However, moving to a system in which health insurance covers most of the cost of physician visits and preventive care (what used to called “first-dollar” coverage) wouldn’t be cheap.  As Michael Cannon notes, Massachusetts shows that reducing mortality via expanding insurance is already pretty pricey:

If we assume the per-person cost of covering those 830 adults is roughly the per-person premium for employer-sponsored coverage in Massachusetts in 2010 (about $5,000), then a back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that RomneyCare spent $4 million or more per life saved. The actual figure may be much higher if we include other costs incurred by that law.

Prof. Harold Pollack comes up with a slightly less expensive figure of $3.3 million.  Prof. Chris Conover does an even more detailed analysis along these lines here.

Using figures from the study and from the Congressional Budget Office, though, shows that ObamaCare is an even more expensive way to save lives.  

Using a formula developed by the Institute of Medicine and plugging in the findings from the Massachusetts study shows that about 30,395 people die each year from lack of insurance.  (To see the calculations behind that number, go here.) The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the ObamaCare exchanges and the Medicaid expansion will cover 25 million, or 46 percent, of the 55 million uninsured by 2017.  Let’s assume those numbers are accurate, and let’s also assume that the number of deaths due to lack of insurance declines 46 percent.  That would be 13,982 more lives saved that year.

The CBO also shows that the net cost of expanding coverage under Obamacare is $142 billion in 2017. Divide that by 13,982, and the cost of saving one life is a staggering $10.1 million.  Even if we make the much more generous assumption that ObamaCare coverage expansions saves all 30,395 lives, the cost per life save is still about a hefty $4.7 million.

Efforts at smoking cessations and hypertention screening, for example, are far less costly.  A 2009 article found that anti-smoking efforts had a median cost of $4,400 per year of life saved.   The cost per year of life saved via hypertension screening is about $79,832.  Annually we lose an estimated 480,000 people due to smoking and 26,634 due to hypertension, far more than we lose due to a lack of insurance.

Now, this is not an attempt to put a price tag on human life.  Rather, this shows that if the goal is improving mortality, a massive government expansion of health insurance is a very inefficient method of doing so, especially when compared to the alternatives.

Resources are limited and they need to be used in ways that are most efficient, especially if the goal is saving lives.  That is, in general, best left to free markets, but as long as government controls so many resources, they should be directed toward methods that improve mortality at the least cost, since those are the methods most likely to save the most lives.  Government expansion of health insurance, alas, isn’t one of those methods.

Related thoughts:

-The title of this post suggests it is an open question whether ObamaCare saves lives.  And it is.  First, while the study on Massachusetts is a pretty solid piece of research, it does have its shortcoming which have been examined elsewhere.  Next, it is only the latest entry in the ongoing controversy over whether health insurance actually saves lives. At present there are five reputable studies that find no link between health insurance and mortality, and five studies, including the most recent one, that do find a link.  Thus, we cannot say with any confidence that health insurance improves mortality or that the ObamaCare expansion will save lives.

-Ross Douthat of the New York Times focused on the portion of the Massachusetts study showing that much of the decline in mortality can be traced to insurance giving people who were previously uninsured more access to a regular source of care and preventive physician visits.  This leads Ross Douthat to perhaps go a bit overboard when he writes that “we should revise down the extent to which…a reform that would shift the system toward flat, universal subsidies for catastrophic coverage — represents a kind of public policy free (or at least relatively-inexpensive) lunch.”  Douthat claims the Massachusetts study suggests that “bigger co-pays and higher deductibles and health savings accounts” that are part and parcel of catastrophic insurance may create “gaping chasms between the care people need and the care they can afford and get.

If Douthat is concerned that paying for primary-care visits reduces deaths, then we could address that much more efficiently if the taxpayers funded $500 for each of the 55 million uninsured to pay for primary care.  That would cost $27.5 billion, or $904,754 per life saved—a bargain compared to the Obamacare exchanges and Medicaid expansion.


More Black Conservatives Speak on VA Scandal

As the scandal over the quality of veterans’ health care provided by the government continues to simmer, more members of the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network who have served their country are speaking out about the bureaucratic abuses of veteran benefits.

An Air Force veteran, Project 21 member Emery McClendon said:

Our veterans deserve better than the treatment that they have been receiving from the Department of Veterans Affairs under President Barack Obama.

Every day, those who serve our country in the armed forces put their lives on the line.  Veterans were made the promise of care in exchange for their service.  They have been betrayed.

Everyone involved in this apparent cover-up must be investigated and disciplined if they were part of these gross abuses.

Having served in the military and being classified as a disabled veteran, I believe the level of care for those who served should never be compromised by a government employee.

The VA needs a good housecleaning from the top down.

Project 21 member Wayne Dupree, another veteran of the U.S. Air Force, said:

As I look over this VA scandal and the deaths of possibly at least 40 veterans as a result of it, my heart is terribly broken.

These results could have been averted if someone would have taken responsibility to fix the initial problem.

There is too much blaming going on with no concrete solutions to fix the problem.

The problems at the VA didn’t start with the Obama Administration, but he promised conditions would be fixed and it would get better.  The American people, and the military veterans who served this nation to protect her from foreign and domestic enemies, were sold a bad bag of goods.

Speaking to a broader and more political marginalization of retired members of America’s armed forces, Project 21 member Bob Parks — veteran of the U.S. Navy — added:

First, PTSD was exploited to officially and legally disarm a growing number of veterans.

We’ve also witnessed the Department of Homeland Security’s linking of “rightwing extremists” and “disgruntled” veterans, even though the vast majority of political unrest and violence over the last few years seems to have been perpetrated by the left.

Now, veterans are allegedly being allowed to die without receiving the medical treatment they were promised.

Why?  Maybe because some of us think the very people who’ve defended our liberty are better qualified to lead than those who routinely devise legislation that consistently takes it away.

We now have a better understanding of why veterans and their health was placed on the could-give-a-care backburner, why they are such a threat to the political entitled arrogants and why the very politicians who send others off to war need to have either served or have family serving in the military.

Skin in the game tends to breed common sense.  This is something that many presently in power today clearly lack.


Policies On Vermont Exchange Could Have Substantial Rate Hikes

Yesterday came news that policies on the Vermont ObamaCare exchange would likely rise, although it wasn’t reported by how much.

Today the Vermont Digger finds that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont is asking to raise its premiums by an average of 9.8 percent for 2015.  Here is a chart of the requested increases:

This chart suggests that the healthier people who enrolled went for the plans with high deductibles (since they have the lowest requested increases).  But as the premiums rise faster for the other policies, healthier people will abandon them for the lower-cost high-deductible policies.  That will drive the cost of those other policies higher as the people in them will be generally sicker.  Eventually, those sicker people will gravitate to the lower-cost high-deductible plans as well. Once that happens, the high-deductible plans won’t be so “low cost” anymore.


This is similar to what we’ve seen elsewhere, with Ohio facing an average increase of 13 percent and Virginia and Washington State facing increases of just under 9 percent.

These rate hikes suggest two things:  First, in theory the ObamaCare risk corridors exist to limit premium hikes. It’s a testament to how badly designed this law is that even with the added taxpayer money from risk corridors, policyholders are facing big premium hikes.

Second is, as always, the exchanges are likely headed for a death spiral. 


How to Submit an Official Comment to the EPA about the Obama Administration's New Climate Regulations

IStock ElectricitySmallWNo, trading terrorists for a hostage isn't all that's happened in Washington lately. This morning, the Environmental Protection Agency announced draconian new regulations on carbon dioxide emissions in a costly-yet-futile attempt to control planetary temperature.

In "honor" of the ridiculous rule, earlier today we released a paper, Top Ten Reasons Washington Should Not Impose New Global Warming Laws or Regulations. I've been doing a lot of radio interviews and being asked by folks what they can do to get these costly, job-killing, electricity-price-increasing regulations stopped or (at minimum) modified.

My first answer is that you should take advantage of the Environmental Protection Agency's 120-day window for public comments on these regulations by writing what you believe about them and what you want the EPA to do (or not do) in the most persuasive way you know how and sending it to the EPA by email, fax or U.S. Mail/Federal Express. This process is open to everyone regardless of age, profession, educational level, etc. You can send one paragraph notes or lengthy letters.

You can find the complete instructions here. There also will be four public hearings in July in Pittsburgh, Denver, Atlanta and Washington D.C. at which the public can speak, although you must register in advance. Information on that is also included at the link.

A note of caution: This is a serious public comment procedure. All comments are reviewed and they are made public online (including any personal information you include with your comments), so do your best work, use spellcheck, and be prepared to live with whatever you say for the rest of our life, because the Internet is forever.

Until we run out of electricity to run it, that is.


Will Obama Call Keontai? Was the Call to Sandra Just a Fluke?

Remember when Henry Louis Gates, the Harvard professor President Obama supported when the professor got in a dispute with Cambridge, Massachusetts police?

Remember Sandra Fluke, the law student who championed ObamaCare’s contraceptive mandate, got criticized by conservatives and then was lionized by the left and asked to speak at President Obama’s re-nomination convention?

Remember Keontai Price, the pro-life activist who was beaten for his belief in the sanctity of life?  Remember how his story was a headline issue across the media and spoken of in the White House briefing room?

Well, not that last example.  There are limits to presidential and media grandstanding.

Neither the media nor President Obama have yet to come to Price’s defense, and the lack of outcry over the beating has members of the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network outraged.

According to a report from Students for Life, Price — a student at Central High School in Tuscaloosa, Alabama — ended up in a hospital emergency room with a broken nose after being assaulted by a man who disagreed with the student’s stance against abortion.

Price said that he was peacefully disseminating pro-life literature in a public park in Tuscaloosa when a man confronted him.  The man, estimated to be around 350 pounds in weight, alleged that his wife just had an abortion because “that’s what they needed to do.”  Soon after making this declaration, the man is said to have pushed Price to the ground and proceeded to punch him in the face.

Price was sent to the ER the next day at the urging to his school principal.  His nose was broken.

The silence about such brutal intolerance has gotten the attention of Project 21 members who call the incident inexcusable despite Price’s own stated willingness to forgive his attacker.

For example, bringing up the celebrity status of the Gates and Fluke incidents, among others, Project 21 member Murdock “Doc” Gibbs said directly to President Obama:

Hey, President Obama, please call Keontai.

You supported Professor Gates at Harvard when you accused the Cambridge police for acting “stupidly.”  You called Sandra Fluke for an alleged verbal insult from a radio talk show host.  You also issued a statement to praise gay football player Michael Sam him for his courage.

How about a call or some support for this 17-year-old black student in Alabama who got assaulted — where his face was bashed and nose broken — by a 350-pound pro-abortion attacker?

We’re waiting to hear about your call… or even for some mainstream media to pick up on the story.

Praising the non-violent and forgiving response from the high school activist, Project 21 member Derryck Green added:

If Keontai, a member of the Students for Life organization, is emblematic of the current state and the future of the pro-life movement, then I am further assured and encouraged about the resolve and fortitude of the movement to withstand both verbal and physical confrontations.  

While handing out pro-life information in his neighborhood, Keontai was assaulted and had his nose broken by a man whose wife had reportedly recently had an abortion.  One can speculate as to why the man attacked Keontai — up to and including the pain, aguish and guilt associated with killing his pre-born child.  But that certainly doesn’t excuse his behavior.

Acting in true Christ-like manner, Keontai didn’t file charges against the man.  In fact, he turned the other cheek.  Keontai forgave the man, and encouraged others in the pro-life movement to pray for the man and his wife.

It’s easy to talk about turning the other cheek and praying for those who persecute you, but it’s actually very difficult to do.  Yet this boy did, and his reaction is a clear insight into his character.  His courage should not only be applauded, but also emulated.

As Keontai pointed out that when Jesus was beaten, he didn’t stop.  And neither will he.

God bless Keontai Price and all of the people he’s inspired and emboldened to continue on in the mission of saving lives.