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.

20 F Street NW, Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20001
(202) 507-6398
Fax (301) 498-1301

Monthly Archives
Twitter feeds

How to Avoid Poverty

I'm not sure which of our pieces referring to Black Lives Matter this gentleman read, but his advice is good regardless:

Dear Sir,

Having just read your piece over BLM as it pertains to the Ferguson case (I realize this is old news and NOT a recent post), I feel compelled to thank you for your HONEST analysis. This is, sadly, missing from today's climate.

I am a school teacher and my mantra is, "It's all about choices." The Brookings Institute just released more research on one of the largest issues facing the Black community. Namely, poverty. In it, it states that if one does NOT want to end up in poverty, DO these three things... 1. Graduate from High School. 2. Get a job and keep a job and don't quit that job until you find a better job. 3. Do NOT have a child out of wedlock.

If one does these things, the chances of ending up in poverty is under 9%.

I hope and pray a voice like yours gets a national spotlight.

Thanks and take care,



Project 21's Cooper Criticizes the Trial of Baltimore Police Officer Caesar Goodson

On June 28, Project 21 Co-Chair Horace Cooper appeared on 1240 WJIM-AM’s “The Steve Gruber Show” to discuss the trial and acquittal of Baltimore police officer Caesar R. Goodson, Jr. related to the death of Freddie Gray.

“The problem here is that the leadership in Baltimore was more interested in using a trial to scapegoat, rather than to carry out the awesome and serious responsibilities that come when you say, ‘I declare a felony has happened and this individual is responsible,’” said Cooper, who is also an attorney, constitutional law commentator and former member of the faculty at the George Mason University School of Law.

“A criminal trial is not a fact-finding opportunity,” continued Cooper. “You don’t have a trial just to find out ‘the truth.’ You have a trial because you have a reason to believe that a crime has actually occurred… You don’t have a trial because the crowd is agitated.  You don’t have a trial because it’s election time and you have ambitions to become mayor or some other higher office.  Those are abuses of office.”

Horace’s appearance can be heard below, starting about 3 minutes into the clip.


Is It Too Much To Expect Our Elected Officials to Understand the Declaration of Independence?

Declaration of IndependenceA document worth taking the time to understand

Project 21's Nadra Enzi had some solid words in rebuttal to a black Louisiana legislator who attacked the Declaration of Independence after one of her fellow legislators proposed requiring Louisiana schoolchildren to recite part of it.

State Rep. Barbara Norton, a Democrat, objects to the Declaration of Independence because, in her words, "only Caucasians (were) free" when it was written.

Of course, this is wrong on its face, since some blacks were free in 1776, and not everyone is either black or Caucasian, but let's look at Norton's larger point, which is that the Declaration was inaccurate to claim, in 1776, that "all men are created equal."

Norton's wrong, here, too, because the point of the Declaration is to state the philosophy that all men are created equal, therefore, a government (such as the one everyone in the colonies lived under when it was written) that does not treat them all equally is a government that is unjust, and one that should be replaced.

Ironically, Norton is arguing against the Declaration because it made the same point she's making -- that everyone is equal and government should treat them accordingly.

Norton is apparently one of those people who is happy to speak publicly about things without first learning much about them. Regrettably, a lot of politicians are that way, but "everybody does it" is a poor excuse for incompetence.

Project 21's Nadra Enzi (who also lives in Louisiana), in an interview with OneNewsNow, was more diplomatic than I am. OneNewsNow writes, in part:

A black conservative says a black Louisiana legislator was out of line for calling the Declaration of Independence "racist" during a debate.

Rep. Barbara Norton made the charge during debate on a bill to require school children to recite part of the founding document.

Nadra Enzi of Project 21 says he understands the context of Norton's argument, namely where people of African ancestry stood at the time of the document's signing in 1776.

"But if we're candid, significant advances have occurred," Enzi insists. "Had they not, then the state representative would not be able to be a state representative and lodge her complaint."

In fact, the Declaration of Independence has been credited for its historic statements that mankind's rights come from our Creator and government's role is to protect those rights.

The words of the Declaration were sprinkled throughout the famous "I Have a Dream" speech by Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1963, during the March on Washington.

"When the architects of the Great Republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence," King said, "they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir."

King went on to lament that the United States had "defaulted" on that "promissory note" for black Americans...

There's more.

It's pretty clear that it isn't just the Declaration of Independence that Norton doesn't understand. She doesn't understand Dr. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, either.


Statement in Response to Orlando Terrorist Attack


Project 21’s Kevin Martin has issued a statement in response to the terrorist shooting in Orlando, Florida that has left at least 50 dead and 53 wounded as of this writing.

My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and families of this brutal and cowardly attack upon my fellow Americans.

Whenever terrorists attack our homeland, they always pick soft targets in places where people are unable to defend themselves. While the pundits & political figures can give their opinions, quote taking points, boast that certain laws would have prevented this, if passed, the reality of the attack is much different from their fiction. A determined terrorist will find his way around any law that is passed. 9-11 demonstrated this. In that case the weapons of choice were everyday box cutters that can be brought at any discount store.

As a veteran, I say it is long past time for the pundits and political echo chamber to shut up, step up and put the blame squarely where it belongs: on those cowardly terrorists, who clearly don’t believe there is any law above their radical mindset and determination to kill the most defenseless and innocent worldwide.

Everyone in the Project 21 and National Center for Public Policy Research family joins with Kevin in expressing our sincere condolences to the families of those who died and our best wishes for the fastest-possible and most complete recovery to those who were injured.

I know you are in my prayers, and those of many others, both here and elsewhere. God bless you all.


CBS Insinuates That We Bombed a Target Store

pretend bombNote to CBS: Not a real bomb

In a story, "Target explosion related to bathroom policy?, CBS News insinuated that the National Center for Public Policy Research bombed an Illinois Target store.

You can read the story here, but be aware that when the story first ran, it did not contain this critical paragraph:

Detectives investigating the incident are questioning a 44-year-old woman, but no charges have been filed so far in the case. 'At this point it does not appear to be related to the bathroom policy issues,' Evanston Police Commander Joseph Dugan said in an email."

Naturally, the story will have gotten most of its play the day it was new, and in that version, CBS notes a Target store was bombed, speculates the bombing was done by people who oppose the new restroom policy, and then specifies that the bombing "coincided" with us questioning Target's CEO about the policy at the annual shareholder meeting.

Inasmuch as we are a 34-year-old think-tank with zero history of bombings or violence of any sort, and we've had no changes in leadership (information CBS could easily obtain), it would have been strange indeed if we had suddenly decided to become mad bombers.

Indeed, we have participated in 85 shareholder meetings in the last three years alone, with no associated bombings. This information also was available to CBS. It was even in the press release CBS was working from.

As a side note, the story was biased in another -- but admittedly, less significant way, in that it did not insinuate a felony -- manner.

Our work at Target was described as, "a conservative activist asked Target CEO Brian Cornell if he regretted Target's policy of inclusion and if he viewed as bigots those who disagreed with the retailer's stance."

We did not ask Mr. Cornell if he regretted his "policy of inclusion." That's CBS inserting its own point of view.

We wouldn't use that phrase. It's inaccurate; Target allowed all its customers access to restrooms and fitting rooms before April 19 as well. No one who did not have access to restrooms and fitting rooms before has it now.

Furthermore, many people do not see Target's policy as one of "inclusion" at all. They see it as Target telling people who don't want to undress in front of the opposite sex that they are not wanted at Target.

CBS also left out why we asked Mr. Cornell if he believes people who believe in segregating restrooms and fitting rooms by biological sex are "bigots." We did so because Mr. Cornell explicitly compared Target's decision-making on this issue with its decision to employ black models in its advertising in the 1960s, and people who opposed the hiring of black models with people who oppose anything-goes restrooms and fitting rooms today.

Mr. Cornell ducked all the questions, which is curious, because giving good answers would have been in his interest, and Target's.

Maybe he had no good answers to give.


Washington Post: At Target’s Shareholder Meeting Comes a Question About Its Bathroom Policy


Today was the first shareholder meeting of the retail giant Target since its April 19 announcement that people can no longer expect that its fitting rooms and restrooms are for the use of people of the same biological sex.

Target's management referred to this as a "welcoming" gesture, but over 1.3 million Americans signed an American Family Association petition saying they no longer plan to shop at Target as a result.

The National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project (FEP) was on hand at the shareholder meeting, where FEP Director Justin Danhof spoke. He also asked Target CEO Brian Cornell a question about its new fitting and restroom policy.

Sarah Halzack of the Washington Post covered our activities at Target, writing, in part:

...Against that backdrop, Justin Danhof, a director at the National Center for Public Policy Research, raised the topic at Target’s Wednesday shareholders’ meeting in Costa Mesa, Calif. Danhof asked Target chief executive Brian Cornell whether he believed that customers and investors who disagree with Target’s policy are bigots, as well as whether Cornell regretted implementing the policy. Danhof said Cornell responded to his questions by speaking generally about the retailer’s focus on diversity. A Target spokeswoman said that Cornell “very much did reiterate that we want to be a place that is welcoming, comfortable and safe” for all shoppers.

Danhof was disappointed in Cornell’s answers, saying, “I’ve never left a meeting feeling that empty.”

Target told reporters in May that it had been monitoring sales and customer behavior closely in the wake of the bathroom policy announcement and said it has not detected any impact on sales. A Target executive reiterated that finding at the shareholders’ meeting on Wednesday...

I think it is extremely strange that Target's management did not prepare a solid, detailed defense of its actions for use at the shareholder meeting today. No retail store shareholder likes to see 1.3 million people sign a petition boycotting their store, and Target's stock value has dropped 18 percent during the seven weeks since the restroom announcement.

The Post's Halzack took issue with us noting the stock price drop, countering:

...NCPPR, the conservative think tank where Danhof works, notes that Target’s stock has sunk recently and suggests that this is evidence of negative fallout from the bathroom policy. But last month, Target delivered a lackluster first-quarter earnings report and gave a gloomy forecast for the second quarter, which analysts have suggested is likely the reason investors have soured on the stock. Plus, the retail industry has generally been in a rough patch, which probably hasn’t helped investors confidence in the Minneapolis-based company...

Here's the thing. If investor confidence is likely to affect the stock price, as Halzack says (and I agree), what is the impact on investor confidence when a restyle giant's management team responds to a "lackluster" first quarter by jumping headfirst into a highly-controversial culture war issue? Wouldn't most shareholders prefer to see management focused on sales?

This is especially true in the case of Target. Many of its stores have "family" style restrooms designed for single use, and the chain has decided to convert the restrooms in all of its stores to the family style. So Target would have found it easier than most stores to skip this particular culture war battle entirely, taking no sides, and making no one unhappy.

But, instead, it decided to get political.

As the Washington Post story explains, Target's management declined to explain why it did what it did. I guess it believes shareholders aren't entitled to know.

Please read the Washington Post story here. If inclined, you can leave a comment either at the end of the Washington Post article, or on the National Center's Facebook page.


Muhammad Ali Remembered by Project 21's John Meredith

John Meredith with Muhammad AliJohn Meredith with Muhammad Ali

Project 21's John Meredith has fond memories of Muhammad Ali, who passed away Saturday night in Phoenix aged 74:

I woke this morning to news of the passing of Muhammad Ali. My heart was instantly saddened but then fond memories of my interactions with The Greatest began to flood my thoughts.

As a child, I had the pleasure of being an overnight guest of the Champ at one of his homes. I was traveling with my father, James Meredith, to where and why I have no recollection but I distinctly recall the pronouncement that the home we were pulling up to was Muhammad Ali’s and that I better not “show out” while I was there.

It was a profound experience. I have remembered it all these years and was honored when some 30-35 years later I had the pleasure of running into him at an event in Washington, DC. My wife and I had gone through the reception line and were chatting with other guests when Mr. Ali’s assistant came over to us and said to me, “the Champ would like to see you.”

MuhammedAli JohnMeredith1

I followed the staffer into the cordoned section were Ali was sitting and sat next to him. Through the conversation it was apparent he knew who I was and when I shared my story of our stay at his house so many decades prior, he smiled, then shared one of his stories of him and my father.

Millions around the world will mourn the loss of this human being, Tina and I among them. But we will also reminisce fondly of our encounters with him and how wonderful those experiences were. RIP Muhammad.


Liberals Claim Privacy is More Important than the Lives of Babies, Less Important than Mandatory Recycling

BrooklynPoliceOfficerTrashnewYork2016NYCWHow would you feel about your local police department regularly going through your trash?

New York city residents don't wonder -- it's happening now under the regime of left-wing mayor Bill de Blasio.

Funny thing about liberals.

They are so big on "privacy" they invented it as a constitutional right and pretty much lose their minds if anyone points out there isn't actually a right to privacy spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, but when it comes to actually believing the citizens have a right to keep their stuff private from the government, where are they?

They are busy putting the government into your business, that's where they are.

A person's trash tends to have a lot of personal things in it. Check stubs that show what you earn; bills that show what you spent and on what; bottles showing what prescription drugs you take; boxes that birth control devices came in and lots more.

You want to know a person's secrets, go through their trash.

So the same liberals who claim a "right to privacy" so sacrosanct we are told to allow the killing of unborn children to protect it will send the police department to your home to rifle through your trash, as described in this report, including video about New York City police officers going through people's trash in order to make certain they didn't put anything into the regular trash that could have been recycled.

The news article about the video extensively quotes the National Center's own Jeff Stier.

Mayor de Blasio and his ilk apparently believe recycling is more important than babies' lives. How sane people can believe this is beyond my understanding.


Will Your Cell Phone Cause You to Develop Cancer?

Last Friday, May 27, Jeff Stier, the Risk Analysis Director at the National Center for Public Policy Research, appeared on CNBC to discuss a new NIH study regarding the link between cell phones and cancer in rats.

Jeff thought the study was completely irrelevant to humans, unless those humans own cellphone-using rats:

These studies are animal studies, high-dose long-term exposure.  Nobody’s exposed to that much cell phone that long at the human equivalent of the rats. This study is more junk science. It’s not relevant to our everyday lives. I have no quibble with the study, by the way.  It’s true. And I’m going to keep my male rats away from cell phones. But it’s not relevant to us.

An excerpt of Jeff’s appearance on CNBC’s “Power Lunch” can be seen below, after the ad.


Lies About Voting Rights Act Should Be Rejected: They are Divisive -- and Wrong!

voter fraud illustrationPinocchio votes. He apparently also works at Think Progress.

Claims the left-wing Think Progress:

This year marks the first presidential election in 50 years without a functioning Voting Rights Act -- and it’s not going well.


We still have the Voting Rights Act. A functioning Voting Rights Act.

The left lies to push its agenda, but these lies come at a cost. Cynicism, for one thing. People falsely believing their fellow citizens are biased against them, for another. Unnecessary and unhelpful divisiveness.

No one (to my knowledge) claims the left doesn't have the right to make its best case for left-wing policies, but even the left should realize that if it needs to tell lies to make that best case, it should reconsider the policies.

In brief, here's the truth:

in 2013, in Shelby County, Alabama v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated one half of one section of the 19-section Voting Rights Act. Not all 19 sections, but one-half of one of 19 sections.

The invalidated section, 4(b), required a handful of states and localities to get advance approval from the U.S. Department of Justice before they changed any voting laws. The Supreme Court ruled that because the list of states and localities had not been updated since 1975, it was out of date.

That's it.

Every other protection in the Voting Rights Act remains.

Obama on voter ID

Even the notion that certain states and localities could be required to get advance permission -- a procedure called "preclearance" -- was upheld, as long as the states and localities subjected to it have been determined by Congress to have a recent history of adopting voting laws with racial or other bias.

Plus, preclearance never applied to the entire country. It applied to Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia (partial), California (partial), Florida (partial), New York (partial), North Carolina (partial), South Dakota (partial), Michigan (partial) and New Hampshire (partial). Outside of these areas, and even in these areas in every way except preclearance, the Voting Rights Act hasn't changed at all.

Quite a stretch to claim that we have no functioning Voting Rights Act whatsoever.

In this age of social media, if any state or locality were to try to change a voting law to make it racially biased, there would be plenty of attention. There's plenty of attention even to false allegations of bias! It's not 1965 anymore.

Think Progress isn't the only liberal to lie about this. Last year, Jesse Jackson falsely claimed the Supreme Court had made the Voting Rights Act "null and void." Project 21's Cherylyn Harley LeBon, Horace Cooper, Shelby Emmett and Joe Hicks explained at the time why Jackson's allegation simply isn't true. I recommend their statement, and the links within it, to anyone who wants more details on this issue.

Reasonable people can disagree over such issues as whether there should be early voting, voter ID, and so forth, but facts are facts. The United States of America still has its -- very powerful -- federal Voting Rights Act.


Federal Judge Slaps Obama Administration Coverup Attempt

U.S. Court of Federal ClaimsU.S. Court of Federal Claims

Attorneys John Yoo and Horace Cooper have an op-ed in Investors Business Daily, published just now, asking why the Obama Administration is hiding thousands of documents relating to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Can't be national security reasons, surely...

A clue might be found in the fact that shareholders in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have sued the U.S. government, contending that the federal government's takeover of the institutions in 2008, and a diversion of profits to the federal government in 2012, constituted an unconstitutional taking of property.

Another clue might come from something a federal judge said when she disagreed with Obama:

The court will not condone the misuse of a protective order as a shield to insulate public officials from criticism in the way they execute their public duties.

John Yoo is Heller Professor of Law at the UC Berkeley School of Law and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, while Horace Cooper is a National Center senior fellow and co-chairman of the African-American leadership group Project 21.

Read their article here.


Real-Life Examples Prove Voter Fraud Does Exist

National Center Fellow and Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper gives real-life examples of voter fraud from all over the United States.

While some of these examples -- such as a New Orleans precinct that enjoyed a 108% voter turnout -- actually make Horace and the host of the show, Jack Burkman, laugh, voter fraud itself is no laughing matter.

It's fashionable on the left to claim voter fraud doesn't exist, but 108 percent voter turnouts don't happen by themselves.


The Truth Can Get You Fired

Or sharing your best guess, anyway, if you aren't careful to be politically-correct.

In this YouTube clip from Behind the Curtain with Jack Burkman, Project 21's Archbishop Council Nedd II addressed the firing of WTAE-Pittsburgh TV News Anchor Wendy Bell.

After six people, including an unborn baby, three adults in their mid-twenties and no one over 37, were gunned down in an unsolved murder a few blocks from WTAE's studio, Bell wrote, in part:

...There's no nice words to write when a coward holding an AK-47 hoses down a family and their friends sharing laughs and a mild evening on a back porch in Wilkinsburg. There's no kind words when 6 people are murdered. When their children have to hide for cover and then emerge from the frightened shadows to find their mother's face blown off or their father's twisted body leaking blood into the dirt from all the bullet holes. There's just been nothing nice to say. And I've been dragging around this feeling like a cold I can't shake that rattles in my chest each time I breathe and makes my temples throb. I don't want to hurt anymore. I'm tired of hurting.

WTAE Pittsburgh ABC  Logo

You needn't be a criminal profiler to draw a mental sketch of the killers who broke so many hearts two weeks ago Wednesday. I will tell you they live within 5 miles of Franklin Avenue and Ardmore Boulevard and have been hiding out since in a home likely much closer to that backyard patio than anyone thinks. They are young black men, likely teens or in their early 20s. They have multiple siblings from multiple fathers and their mothers work multiple jobs. These boys have been in the system before. They've grown up there. They know the police. They've been arrested. They've made the circuit and nothing has scared them enough. Now they are lost. Once you kill a neighbor's three children, two nieces and her unborn grandson, there's no coming back. There's nothing nice to say about that.

Council points out that Bell's comments received more national attention than the actual murder of six people. He also noted the irony: "WTAE is a Hearst company. How did William Randolph Hearst make his money? By slandering people!"

"She dares to show some emotion; to have an emotional moment about it, and she gets fired for it," Council said.

Burkman said, "political correctness... it's becoming a kind of terrorism in this country... it's just a power game where people use this as a threat."

Critics of Bell seem not to be moved by the fact that her comments clearly were motivated by distress at the deaths of black people. She's racist anyway, according to their accusatory thinking.

Watch the entire 9-minute TV segment here.

For more Project 21 commentary on the Wendy Bell firing, go here.


University Researchers Hide Good News - Why?

Why would a public research university boasting a top-100 geology program deliberately hide its work?

So asks -- and answers -- the National Center's Jeff Stier in an op-ed published today in Newsweek.

Take a look.


Bipartisan Dark Money and California's Latest Economic Misstep

Dark money, the minimum wage and media bias were hot topics of discussion when the National Center’s Horace Cooper appeared on RT Network’s “The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann.”

When discussing “dark money” in elections, Horace noted that candidates who receive dark money contributions are not necessarily going to win:

“Hillary Clinton in 2008 well outspent Barack Obama and YET! Did it make her dumb? Did it make her supporters dumb? It is not the case that whoever gives the checks get to decide. The people get to decide.”

Horace also noted that dark money is a bipartisan practice:

“It was the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the NAACP, who got the Supreme Court to recognize that there was a right to keep your donors secret.” Also: George Soros “does the lion’s share of his political influencing as dark money.”

Here’s the discussion of “dark money”:

Later, Horace criticized California’s decision to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour:

“California IS the place where awful and bad ideas thrive and prosper,” crowed Horace.

“Like Apple and Microsoft?” asked host Thom Hartmann.

“Oh they’re going to be leaving soon. I just spent a few days in Austin and it is becoming the new Silicon Valley,” responded Horace.

Horace also noted that the minimum wage hike will also worsen California’s challenges regarding illegal immigration:

“The difficulty in having illegal or unlawful residents working in California is going to be exacerbated, precisely because this rate is higher than what the market will offer. These individuals, who are already here working illegally, will come in and they will accelerate and exacerbate, displacing mostly blacks and other low-income people.”

Here is the discussion of the minimum wage hike, as well as criticism of the media’s careful treatment of Donald Trump:


Ex-Im Bank, Scorned as Wasteful, Spends $75,000 to Lease a Car

2011 Toyota Land Cruiser$75,000 leases a very nice car

Looks like the leadership of the Import-Export Bank is exceedingly sensitive to the fact that little more than a quarter of the public wanted the U.S. Import-Export Bank to be reauthorized.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic.

If I ran Boeing, General Electric, Exxon Mobil, Caterpillar or any of the other firms benefiting from Ex-Im bank loans for foreign businesses and governments,* I'd tell the Ex-Im Bank leadership not to do things like spend $75,000 in taxpayers' money leasing a luxury vehicle.

Because, you know, Ex-Im Bank backers' rhetoric about how they wanted the bank reauthorized just to help the little guy might seem a bit more sincere if they don't screw the same little guys by using their tax dollars on fancy cars.

*Note: Ex-Im Bank backers will want me to note that the loans are made so foreign businesses and governments can buy U.S. firms' products.

E-Cigarettes May Soon be Banned in the United States

Tobaccocigarettee cigDPCW

The National Center's Risk Analysis Director, Jeff Stier, tells me that e-cigarettes may soon be banned in the United States.

This will set up a ludicrous situation in which e-cigarettes, which deliver nicotine to users without cancer-causing tobacco carcinogens or any smoke (including second-hand smoke), are banned, while tobacco cigarettes are perfectly legal.

(It's almost like the government wants to kill us.)

E-cigarettes, as most of you know, are electronic nicotine-delivery devices that look like tobacco cigarettes, and which are inhaled like tobacco cigarettes, but don't contain tobacco. They emit water vapor, but no smoke.

The advantage of e-cigarettes over tobacco cigarettes is that they don't contain, and thus don't burn, tobacco. Tobacco cigarettes cause cancer because of the carcinogens a tobacco cigarette smoker is exposed to when tobacco is burned.

Jeff tells me the FDA is expected to issue a rule, known in the regulatory businesses as a "deeming regulation," that could ban all e-cigarettes that began sales after February 15, 2007. That's almost all of them.

Various nanny state organizations like the idea of banning e-cigarettes, because they don't want people to inhale nicotine. They also don't want young people using e-cigarettes.

While it is inarguable that young people won't use e-cigarettes if e-cigarettes don't exist, we are faced with the ludicrous notion in the United States today that e-cigarettes, a nicotine-delivery device much safer than tobacco cigarettes, will be banned, while tobacco cigarettes won't be.

Even more ludicrous, e-cigarettes could be banned against a backdrop in which marijuana cigarettes are increasingly made legal. I'm told marijuana cigarettes are even more carcinogenic than tobacco.

In the end, though, it comes down to this: who decides? Do you want the option of e-cigarettes for yourself or your friends and family who may be addicted to nicotine? Or do you want the federal government to take that choice away from you, effectively steering you toward tobacco, unless you quit nicotine outright?

Next Wednesday, the House Appropriations Committee may take steps to tell the FDA not to ban e-cigarettes. If you have an opinion on this, let the members of that committee know. This is one of those moments in which the public has the opportunity to make a difference, because not many people know that e-cigarettes may soon be banned. Those who get in touch with the Appropriations Committee's members will likely be among the very few people they hear from.

Jeff Stier will be issuing a press release tomorrow morning with his thoughts on the matter and more information. It will be posted on He's also available for media interviews. If you are with the press and want to speak with Jeff, call Judy Kent at (703) 759-7476 or cell (703) 477-7476 or email or email Jeff at


Kevin Martin on SCOTUS, Drug Wars and Gitmo

On the 3/25/16 episode of RT Network’s “The Big Picture,” Project 21’s Kevin Martin took on issues ranging from the SCOTUS nominee to the drug wars to Gitmo detainees.

Martin pointed out the hypocrisy of liberals who are demanding that the Senate vote on Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland:

“Why should they vote for him?” asked Martin.

“Because the Constitution says it’s their job,” replied host Thom Hartmann.

“But they didn’t do their job in 2005 when YOUR party ran the Senate,” shot back Martin.

Regarding recent revelations from a Nixon advisor about how the Nixon Administration vilified minorities and drug abusers in the 1970s because they were seen as political enemies:

“In ’70 you had the hippies, you had the blacks, you gotta keep them down, they’re scary, they’re in the corner,” said Martin. “Both parties have gone after working white folks by using minorities and drug addiction as the boogeyman.”

“I don’t like much that comes out of Kevin’s mouth, but he’s right,” replied Kevin’s liberal fellow panelist Chuck Rocha.

Regarding the future of released Guantanamo detainees, Martin noted that “no one’s gonna vote for a congressman or senator who’s gonna put these people in their backyard.”

These segments of “The Big Picture Rumble” can be viewed below.


More Indictments for Crime That Doesn't Exist

VoterIDRally030512c croppedW

Although left-wing activists claim "voter fraud doesn't exist," prosecutors have somehow continued to find cases to prosecute.

Are all these prosecutors right-wing racists?


Latest case in the news comes from Florida, where, the Orlando Sentinel reports (hat tip: Election Law Center), the mayor of Eatonville and two others have been indicted on 25 counts of voter fraud.

The Sentinel reports the mayor was accused of voter fraud in 1991 as well.

I have no idea of the mayor of Eatonville is guilty of these charges, but I do know this much: Voter fraud exists.

The only question is, why are some people working so hard to convince the public it doesn't?


Starbucks Asked to Protect Employees' Right to be Politically Active Without Penalty at Work

Justin Danhof, general counsel of the National Center for Public Policy Research and director of its Free Enterprise Project, addressed the CEO, board and shareholders of Starbucks at Starbucks' 2016 shareholder meeting on March 23, 2016.


Shareholders were asked to vote for a human rights proposal and to support a policy change at Starbucks to protect employees from workplace retribution if they engage in legal political or civic activities outside of the workplace, on their own time, even if their superior holds differing views.

Justin's presentation was part of the National Center's Employee Conscience Protection Project, which, among other activities promoting human rights, has so far convinced 13 major corporations employing over 5 million workers to agree not to penalize or fire employees based on their legal political or civic activities undertaken in their free time.

Justin's remarks at the Starbucks meeting, as prepared for delivery, are available here.

More information about the National Center's presentation at Starbucks and its Employee Protection Policy Project is available here.