See the National Center's Tom Borelli on Fox News on Friday Afternoon

On Friday afternoon, Free Enterprise Project director Tom Borelli is slated be a guest on the Fox News Channel program “Your World.”

Tom will be talking about labor unions, their political influence in Washington and how the Obama Administration is lowering the bar to make it easier for unions to organize.  Critics feel that weakening the rules regarding organizing tactics will lead to increased intimidation of those wishing not to join unions or fund the political agenda of union bosses.

Tom’s interview with Fox News host Neil Cavuto is scheduled for approximately 4:20PM eastern.

Check your local listings for Fox News Channel on cable.  Fox News is available on channel 118 on Fios, channel 205 on Dish Network and channel 360 on DirecTV.

Project 21’s Borelli on Fox News “Power Panel” This Sunday Afternoon

Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli is scheduled to be on the Fox News Channel on Sunday afternoon.  She is slated to join co-host Heather Childers and other Fox News contributors during the “Power Panel” segment of the “America’s News Headquarters” program.  The group will talk about the top news stories of the past week and breaking news should it be occurring.

Deneen’s segment is expected to air around 4:40PM eastern.

Check your local listings for Fox News Channel on cable.  Fox News is available on channel 118 on Fios, channel 205 on Dish Network and channel 360 on DirecTV.

Steven Crowder Joins Hannity’s “Great American Panel”

Tune in to “Hannity” on Friday night to see National Center media fellow Steven Crowder on host Sean Hannity’s “Great American Panel.”

“Hannity” can be send at 9:00PM eastern, with a repeat at midnight.

Check your local listings for Fox News Channel on cable.  Fox News is available on channel 118 on Fios, channel 205 on Dish Network and channel 360 on DirecTV.

Steven Crowder on "Red Eye" — Overnight Tonight

Having trouble sleeping?  Put your insomnia to good use tonight by watching National Center media fellow Steven Crowder discuss the hot news topics of the previous day on the Fox News Channel’s “Red Eye” program.

Or DVR it and watch it later… at a respectable hour.

“Red Eye” is broadcast on the Fox News Channel at 3:00AM eastern — in the wee hours of Friday morning.

Check your local listings for Fox News Channel on cable.  Fox News is available on channel 118 on Fios, channel 205 on Dish Network and channel 360 on DirecTV.

Project 21’s Stacy Swimp to Interview South Carolina Attorney General Tonight — Listen Live

Project 21 member Stacy Swimp is scheduled to interview South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson on Wednesday, January 25.  The interview will be broadcast on the “Project 21 Speaks” segment of Stacy’s “Contagious Transformation” show on blogtalkradio.

The show airs live at 7:00PM eastern.  To listen live, or later as a podcast, click here.

Stacy says the topics slated for discussion tonight include the state’s voter identification law and the federal challenge to it, immigration reform and South Carolina’s participation in the U.S. Supreme Court challenge to Obamacare.

More Project 21 Reaction to Obama’s State of the Union Address

Minutes after President Obama finished his annual report to Congress, Project 21 issued a press release about how black conservatives were unimpressed with the speech due to it being “long on rhetoric and short in presenting a strategy to fix the stagnant American economy that has not improved under his leadership.”

The day after the speech, there are more Project 21 members speaking out about their disappointment in the President’s performance.

Project 21 spokeswoman Tara Setmayer said:

I don’t know what planet President Obama has been living on for the last three years, but it hasn’t been Earth and certainly not this country.  Is this guy ever capable of taking responsibility for anything?  By now he should be talking about his accomplishments, but he can’t because his presidency has been a marked failure.

Shelby Emmett, another Project 21 spokeswoman, added:

Obama, I can pick my health care without you.  I can buy light bulbs without you.  I can survive on Earth without you.  I can do virtually everything without you except protect my nation from terrorists and Iran.  So go away and fight terrorism.  That’s all we need you to do.  Pretty much everything else in your speech is called “socialism.”

Finally, Project 21 spokesman Stacy Swimp said:

Throughout his speech, Obama once again talked about big government and crony capitalism but not giving the average American and small businesses real tax reform.  He talked about jobs being created, but how many of those jobs — such as those at the Boeing plant in South Carolina — exist in spite of him and not due to his actions?  Obama chose not to use his speech to discuss reforming and repealing regulations, such as those coming out of the EPA or the Davis-Bacon Act, that are stifling job creation.  And the incessant need to create new and costly government programs.  Has he no concern about the debt?!

Fighting Senseless Sin Taxes in Maryland: "There's good reason for lower taxes on smokeless tobacco"

My letter to the editor in The Baltimore Sun challenges the paper’s editorial support for a proposal to raise sin-taxes on smokeless tobacco to the same (nearly confiscatory) rate as on cigarettes, which are far more harmful.

I write,

Your editorial “The ‘other’ tobacco tax” (Jan. 19) is based on either a basic misunderstanding of how sin taxes are meant to work or a failure to appreciate that cigarettes are by far the most dangerous form of tobacco use.

Sin taxes are a bad idea. But if the underlying purpose of a sin tax is to discourage risky behavior, the tax rate on each product ought to be in line with the risk of that behavior.

But Gov.Martin O’Malley’s plan to increase sin taxes on smokeless tobacco and cigars, in order to level the playing field with cigarettes, ignores the established science that cigarettes are by far the most dangerous way to use tobacco.

Cigarettes, which are burned and inhaled, are far more dangerous than smokeless tobacco, which experts estimate as 99 percent less harmful than smoking.

Cigars, which are more dangerous than smokeless products simply because they burn the tobacco, are generally used far less frequently than cigarettes and are thus responsible for fewer health problems.

Increasing revenues, especially in difficult financial times, is a temptation few lawmakers can resist. But until sin taxes are done away with, they should at least be applied based on rationality and science.

Jeff Stier, Washington

The writer is a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research.

I was also pleased to see an excellent letter by Dr. Brad Rodu, endowed chair of tobacco harm reduction research at the University of Louisville’s James Graham Brown Cancer Center. Dr. Rodu wrote, 

All tobacco is not equally harmful

Your recent editorial endorsed a tax increase on tobacco products other than cigarettes, but it was based on some sweeping statements that are not scientifically accurate or credible (“The ‘other’ tobacco tax,” Jan 20).

You stated: “Tobacco is linked to an estimated 6,861 deaths in Maryland each year … the American Lung Association reports.” The Lung Association actually reported that smoking caused these deaths. The distinction is critical because your case for raising OTP taxes is based on the presumption that all tobacco products are equally risky: “Experts say all forms of tobacco are considered harmful to human health no matter whether they are smoked, puffed, chewed or otherwise ingested. Smokeless tobacco, for instance, is often linked to oral and esophageal cancer.”

In fact, smokeless tobacco use is 98 percent safer than smoking. While smokeless may be “linked to oral and esophageal cancer,” the specific risks are well established in the scientific literature, and they are minuscule. In 2009, a comprehensive review published calculations showing how smokeless tobacco use might have changed cancer deaths among American men in 2005, when 104,737 in the U.S. died from seven cancers directly attributable to smoking. If all smokers had instead used smokeless tobacco, the number would have been 1,102. The risks from smokeless tobacco are so low that, even if all American men had been users, there would have been 2,298 cancer deaths, only 2.2 percent of the number attributable to smoking.

Smokeless tobacco use is vastly safer than smoking, so it is not “foolish public policy” for smokeless taxes to be lower than those for cigarettes. The emerging awareness of smokeless as a cigarette substitute is not just an industry ploy, it has been endorsed by two prestigious medical organizations, the British Royal College of Physicians and the American Association of Public Health Physicians. The Royal College concluded “…that smokers smoke predominantly for nicotine, that nicotine itself is not especially hazardous, and that if nicotine could be provided in a form that is acceptable and effective as a cigarette substitute, millions of lives could be saved.”

Brad Rodu, Louisville, Kentucky

Pepsi Settles Invented Discrimination Claim

 Over the last few weeks, I have been warning employers that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has invented a new form of discrimination that may place companies at risk of federal lawsuits.  Through an informal guidance letter, the EEOC recently suggested that having a high school diploma requirement for certain job openings might be illegal discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Discrimination: Whatever the EEOC says it is.

(Click here to listen to my January 19th interview with syndicated talk radio host Jim Bohannon about this EEOC guidance.) 

Some have expressed skepticism that the guidance won’t mean much because it does not carry the weight of law.  While technically true, a major American company just learned the hard way that EEOC guidance carries significant power.  

Earlier this month, the EEOC announced that Pepsi Beverages Company would pay $3.13 million to settle a discrimination complaint.  Following similar informal guidance, the EEOC said Pepsi illegally discriminated against black job applicants because it conducted criminal background checks for potential employees.  According to the EEOC: 

The EEOC’s investigation revealed that more than 300 African Americans were adversely affected when Pepsi applied a criminal background check policy that disproportionately excluded black applicants from permanent employment

“Adversely affected” means they likely didn’t get the job because of a prior arrest.  So how is this discrimination under the 1964 Civil Rights Act?  Well, since a higher percentage of black and Hispanic Americans have criminal records than the population at large, employers who use criminal background checks can be guilty of illegal discrimination, so dictates the EEOC’s guidance.

While the informal guidance does not carry the full weight of a law or regulation, in this case, it signals how the EEOC would interpret the Civil Rights Act.  If they went to court, Pepsi would need to argue that the EEOC’s interpretation is wrong.  This is not an easy burden.  Under Supreme Court precedent (Chevron v. NRDC), courts provide initial deference to agency interpretation of laws and regulations.  

However, this guidance seems to misconstrue the Civil Rights Act and goes beyond the law’s original intent.  Pepsi would have had solid legal footing to challenge the EEOC.  Besides, is it Pepsi’s fault that blacks statistically get arrested at high rates?  

Pepsi had what was obviously considered at the time to be a common-sense hiring policy meant to foster a safe work environment.  They did not actively discriminate against anyone.  According to the Associated Press, “the EEOC did not find any intentional discrimination.”  So when does “did not find any intentional discrimination” turn into illegal discrimination?  When the EEOC says so. 

Instead of looking for actual bias and real discrimination, it seems the EEOC simply bean-counts and declares invented discrimination where it sees fit.   

Who saw this coming?  We here at the National Center did.  In August 2010, the National Center issued two press releases deriding the guidance on such background checks as wrongheaded and detrimental to the economy.  Then, last July, after the EEOC held hearings on its wayward guidance – suggesting that criminals need jobs or else they will commit more crimes – I commented that: 

When parsed out, the EEOC’s logic is so convoluted it collapses on itself.  

One the one hand, the EEOC is telling employers, “don’t worry, hire criminals, they are contributing members of society.”  But on the other hand, an EEOC spokeswoman told the Wall Street Journal, “if ex-offenders are not given jobs the chances are that they may re-offend.” 

So these folks will commit more crimes if companies don’t hire them, but they will be model employees if corporations do employ them?  Yeah, that makes sense.  

The EEOC needs to abandon this misguided guidance and let employers resume hiring based on valid business considerations.  

America does not have a crisis of too few regulations.  It has a crisis of too few jobs.  Perhaps, if we got rid of some of the former, we could have more of the latter.

It could be argued that Pepsi choose to settle the complaint to avoid a public relations nightmare.  But, they didn’t.  Just take a look at some recent headlines:  from ABC News, “Pepsi Beverages Pays $3.1M in Racial Bias Case,” from the Wall Street Journal, “Pepsi Bottling Unit Settles Discrimination Charges for $3.1M,” from the EEOC announcement, “Pepsi to Pay $3.13 Million and Made (sic) Major Policy Changes to Resolve EEOC Finding of Nationwide Hiring Discrimination Against African Americans.”  These headlines do not paint Pepsi in a positive light.  It would seem the EEOC basically extorted Pepsi, and the soda company was too timid to fight back.  

Instead of essentially rolling over for the EEOC, Pepsi should have gone to court.  The EEOC’s informal guidance misconstrues the legal concept of disparate impact and creates a de facto protected class that Congress never intended.  

The EEOC, as courts have proven, is not an invincible government machine.  Just two weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down an EEOC ruling that misconstrued the First Amendment in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC.  In a rare showing of consensus, all nine justices agreed that the EEOC lacked the power to tell religious organizations who they must hire.    

Since the EEOC is unlikely to revoke either its criminal background check or its high school diploma requirement guidance, it is up to the legal system to reign in this federal freight train.  Let’s just hope the next company to enter the EEOC’s crosshairs for violating one of these guidances has a little more courage of their convictions.  

Deneen Borelli on Fox News Sunday Afternoon

Take a time out from football on Sunday afternoon to watch Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli on the Fox News Channel.  Deneen is scheduled to join co-host Heather Childers and other Fox News contributors on the “Power Panel” segment of the “America’s News Headquarters” program.  The group will discuss the top news stories of the past week and breaking news if anything big arises.

Deneen’s segment is expected to air around 4:40PM eastern.

Check your local listings for Fox News Channel on cable.  Fox News is available on channel 118 on Fios, channel 205 on Dish Network and channel 360 on DirecTV.

Project 21’s Hollis has an Old Commentary on a New Movie

Project 21’s Jimmie Hollis“Red Tails,” the new movie from producer George Lucas about the black airmen who fought Germans in the air and racial animosity back at home during World War II, opens in theaters today.  A trailer for the film can be found by clicking here.

Project 21 member Jimmie Hollis, a U.S. Air Force veteran, wrote about the same 332^nd Fighter Group celebrated in “Red Tails” in a New Visions Commentary that was published in January of 2006.  Jimmie wrote:

As an American of African ancestry and a United States Air Force retiree, I often think of those Black Angels streaking across the sky during World War II.  Racism and hatred tested, boiled, chewed and spit out these black pilots, but they came away better, tougher, smarter and more determined and professional than ever.

The full text of Jimmie’s commentary can be found by clicking here.

Jarrett’s Partisan Rant Should Put IRS Rule in Spotlight

Last Sunday, helping commemorate the upcoming Martin Luther King holiday, Obama Administration senior advisor Valerie Jarrett took part in a service held at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta.  From the pulpit of Dr. King’s former church, Jarrett made a blatantly partisan pitch that puts the historic congregation at risk of IRS retaliation.

According to experts in tax law, Jarrett’s overt criticism of Republicans may have violated IRS rules that bar churches from engaging in partisan activism.  Eric Stanley, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (a critic of such laws), told the Daily Caller: “It is problematic under current regulations.”

During her remarks, Jarrett warned that “[t]eachers and firefighters and policemen… are… in jeopardy because… of Republicans in Congress.”  Along with Jarrett, Ebeneezer senior pastor Raphael Warnock similarly singled out a Republican challenger of the President for criticism.  And, to top it all off, there was a voter registration table available in the building — something that one media report indicated is often paired with church services.

Internal Revenue Service code currently prohibits tax-exempt religious institutions from participating in “voter education or registration activities” that could “favor one candidate over another,” “oppose a candidate” or “favoring a candidate or group of candidates.”

Project 21’s Stacy WashingtonProject 21 spokeswoman Stacy Washington doesn’t support Jarrett’s assertions, but she does think Jarrett should have the freedom to make them from Ebeneezer’s pulpit without risking the tax status of that famous and historic church at risk.  Another thing that bothers Stacy is that there appears to be little concern over what Jarrett did — with Stacy believing the outcry would be deafening if it was a conservative involved in a partisan pitch from a pulpit

Stacy challenges the IRS code as unconstitutional but is similarly critical of the apparent lack of concern over the potential infraction, saying:

A woeful display of hypocrisy presented itself in the welcome reception that was given to Valerie Jarrett last weekend while she chastised Republicans from the pulpit of the Ebeneezer Baptist Church.

The issue to me isn’t that she talked politics in church, since that is what our nation’s founders did on a regular basis.  I believe the actual issue hinges on the double-standard of liberals constantly complaining about and reporting evangelical churchgoers to the IRS for speaking out on homosexual marriage and other conservative topics that critics claim are partisan while they are just as guilty — perhaps even more.  

There is an end game here, and I’ll call it like it is.  There is no constitutionally-mandated restriction on speaking out on any subject from the pulpits of churches in America.  The IRS has powers it is not constitutionally charged to wield.  Regulations that have regularly silenced church leaders are ludicrous and should be repealed immediately.

Instead of calling for another improper display of tyranny, liberals should accept that any church is free to preach whatever they please from the pulpit touching on any and all topics as the Bible touches every area of a person of faith’s life.

We should no longer sit idly by and accept censorship of our free speech based on the venue in which it is presented.

NAACP Drags MLK Street Names into the Gutter in Assault on Microsoft

Heard the story about Microsoft’s “Avoid the Ghetto” app that tells people not to go to Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard?

There’s more to it than the sensational headlines and the complaints of at least one local NAACP official.

Microsoft has filed for a patent on a yet-unnamed smartphone application that reportedly will apply crime statistics to the traditional navigation software for users who might want to steer clear of high-crime areas.  But a local Dallas-Ft. Worth CBS report says that Microsoft says the company “does not comment on filed or awarded patents.”

It’s the critics, such as Dallas Branch NAACP [http://www.naacpdallas.org/Index.htm] president Juanita Wallace who are leaping to conclusions that the app is “stereotyping for sure and without a doubt.  I can’t emphasize it enough, it’s discriminatory.”

Just like when the Los Angeles NAACP chapter went after the Hallmark greeting card company in 2010 for absolutely no reason, the NAACP seems quite content to make the call before all — and in this case, any — of the facts are really known.  In the process, they are perpetrating the very same stereotype they claim to want to stamp out.

Wallace, for instance, brought Dr. King into the controversy by telling CBS News: “Can you imagine me not being able to go to MLK Boulevard because my GPS says that’s a dangerous crime area?  I can’t even imagine that.”

Unless the new app is hardwired to the car and controls its movements, neither can anyone else.

Going on the rumors about what the app will do, it will give people a choice to not go into a high-crime area.  If it’s going by statistics, any neighborhood risks getting flagged depending on the sensitivity of the settings and likely without any regard to race, gender or class.

Michael McNally, a tourist to Dallas who was interviewed for the CBS News story, said about the Big D: “It may have a high crime problem, but [it has] some great cultural, social things you can do there.”

Exactly.  McNally can download the app to his phone, dial up a music club in the same neighborhood in Dallas with the highest murder or robbery rate and completely ignore the app’s alerts if he chooses to do so.

So why did Wallace make the generalization about Martin Luther King Boulevard?  Ask Chris Rock.  In one of his comedy acts (as transcribed by The Grio web site), Rock cracked wise:

If a friend calls you on the telephone and says they’re lost on Martin Luther King Boulevard and they want to know what they should do, the best response is “Run!”  In other words, no matter where you live in America, if you are on Martin Luther King Boulevard, there’s some violence going on.

Project 21’s Kimberley Jane WilsonIn a more serious assessment written in 1998, Project 21 member Kimberley Jane Wilson wrote about her own experience on a street named after Dr. King.  Kimberley noted:

All across black America, there are Martin Luther King streets, avenues, drives and boulevards and each has one major thing in common with this MLK bridge: they all lead to the most crime-ridden parts of town.  What is also shocking are the number of schools named after Dr. King that have metal-detectors, cops, birth control centers and gang containment programs — not to mention tragically-low test scores.

Kimberly complained that the link came due to “urban mayors and city councils across this land [who] decided to throw a bone to the black community by naming something in town after the late reverend.”  That notion is backed-up by Clement Price, a historian at Rutgers University, who calls such acts “a cheap way to honor Dr. King.  It [doesn’t] require anything but a city ordinance and a few street signs.”

Then again, there are those who might take offense if there is no MLK Boulevard in their city.  East Carolina University geography professor Derek Alderman suggests:

They’re not just ways of getting your mail delivered.  People invest a great deal in their street identity.  Change a street name, and you change the way people think about their city.  It’s where ideology meets asphalt.

So name a street after Dr. King or not.   Both will likely cause someone to scream racism these days.

But not all roads named after Dr. King are high-crime areas.  That generality comes from those claiming to defend his good name.

After hearing Rock’s generalization of MLK Boulevards, University of North Texas graduate student Eric Katzenberger did a study of the 730 thoroughfares that he found named in America after Dr. King.

Katzenberger found most of them in the south — but not exclusively.  Most, not surprisingly, are in black neighborhoods.  Also, the residents there are usually poorer than peers living elsewhere.  And 14 percent of them contain households with single mothers — twice the national average.

But Katzenberger also found “diversity” in the naming process.  One naming occurred in the wake of a hate crime committed on the street.  He found that MLK Boulevard in Dallas used to be named after a founder of the Ku Klux Klan.  And there are more than a hundred streets named after Dr. King in white neighborhoods — even as many as 30 in what are considered to be “wealthy, exclusively white neighborhoods.”

Like Kimberley, Katzenberger also wonders if many of the designations are motivated to appease residents, but he ultimately considers it “a puzzle in need of further investigation.”

Kimberley, perhaps generalizing a bit herself, nonetheless properly put the onus on people such as the NAACP’s Wallace to actually do something rather than just complain about what might (or might not) be.  In her commentary, Kimberley wrote:

Does black America remember that Martin Luther King, Jr. was raised in a staunchly conservative and deeply religious home on a quiet middle-class street?  Has black America forgotten the ambitious young striver who was admitted early to Moorehouse College?  Surely someone recalls that Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream of equality and the hope that one day blacks could finally be allowed to take their place on the forefront of the American scene?  Why isn’t black America outraged that his name is attached to the crime-ridden ghettoes and schools where no one is learning?  What kind of tribute is this to Dr. King’s legacy?

Project 21’s Stacy SwimpWhatever the motivation, it’s largely up to a community to clean itself up.  As Project 21 spokesman Stacy Swimp adds: “If people don’t like it, do something about it.”  Stacy notes that the failure of some urban “enterprise zones” can be linked to community indifference, saying: “You can’t make someone feel safe when an area isn’t safe.”

Ultimately, the problem is morality — not Microsoft.  When the app comes out, if it actually does come out after this NAACP-generated controversy, it will likely flag high crime areas.  Warnings will attempt to steer drivers clear of white neighborhoods, black neighborhoods and all neighborhoods where low moral values have given way to open incivility and a cheapening of human life.

This is the problem that Juanita Williams, the NAACP, Chris Rock and others concerned about the reputations of streets named after Dr. King need to deal with right now.  People and attitudes — not the 1s and 0s of app software — need to be changed.

Tom Borelli to Discuss National Center's Apple Shareholder Proposal on FBN at 10 PM Eastern

Tom Borelli, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project, will discuss the National Center's Apple shareholder proposal on the Fox Business Network tonight at 10 PM Eastern.

Earlier today, we issued a press release asking Apple shareholders to vote for our proposal:

Apple Shareholders Urged to Vote for Conflict of Interest Shareholder Proposal to Determine if Al Gore Violated Apple's Business Conduct Policy

Shareholders Have a Right to Know if Gore's Personal Financial Interests are Conflicting with His Board Responsibilities, says National Center for Public Policy Research

Washington D.C. - Today the National Center for Public Policy Research is urging Apple shareholders to vote for shareholder proposal # 4 in the company's 2012 proxy statement.

The proposal, submitted by the National Center for Public Policy Research, asks Apple to determine if board member Al Gore violated the company's Business Conduct Policy. At issue is whether Gore played a role in Apple's 2009 decision to end its membership in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as part of an effort to pressure the trade group to stop opposing greenhouse gas regulations.

Several companies, including Apple, ended their relationship with the Chamber over the trade group's aggressive opposition to the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill and EPA regulation of carbon emissions.

Gore's significant personal investments in renewable energy and related technologies would have benefited from these greenhouse gas regulations.

"Board members are obligated to look out for shareholder interests and not for their own personal financial goals. Shareholders have a right to know if Gore was involved in Apple's decision to end its membership with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce," said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center's Free Enterprise Project.

"It's no secret that Gore has a significant financial stake in clean energy and cap-and-trade would have boosted his investments. If Gore was behind Apple's decision regarding the Chamber, I believe his involvement was driven by a personal profit motive without regard to the best interests of shareholders," added Borelli.

Gore is a founder of Generation Investment Management and a partner in the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers - firms that have significant investments in clean energy and environmentally-related products.

According to the New York Times, "Mr. Gore has invested a significant portion of the tens of millions of dollars he has earned since leaving government in 2001 in a broad array of environmentally-friendly energy and technology business ventures, like carbon trading markets, solar cells and waterless urinals."

Apple's business conduct policy defines a conflict of interest as "...any activity that is inconsistent with or opposed to Apple's best interests, or that gives the appearance of impropriety or divided loyalty."

"Since Apple's business in computers and electronic devices does not make it a major emitter of greenhouse gases, global warming regulations are not a core business issue for the company. This fact raises questions why the company would weigh in on a policy issue matter such as greenhouse gas regulations. Because Apple's decision could have benefited Gore and not the company, we filed this shareholder proposal and urge shareholders to vote for our proposal," said Borelli.

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a shareholder in Apple. The company's annual shareholder meeting will be held on February 23, 2012 at Apple's headquarters in Cupertino, California.

Thomas Edison, Call Your Office

The Washington Post reports that a Maryland fluorescent light bulb recycler has pleaded guilty to ten felony counts of mishandling mercury, posing "serious threats" to workers.

Keep in mind that consumers who use compact fluorescent bulbs, often referred to as CFLs, are supposed to dispose of used bulbs in recycling centers like the one in the story.

I argued in newspapers, during radio interviews and in articles all last year that most people aren't recycling CFLs, but throwing them in the trash. As many bulbs will be smashed there (if not within the household, then in garbage trucks that compact the trash, or later, in landfills), and we are told that ordinary plastic garbage bags, even tightly sealed, will not contain the mercury safely, I wonder about the safety of sanitation workers after long-term exposure, especially if the incandescent light bulb ban is not repealed.

Despite even my gloomy outlook, it had not occurred to me that recycling centers were similarly dangerous.

Perhaps someone could invent a bulb -- we could call it "incandescent," or even "halogen" -- that would not have this problem. And not ban their manufacture or import by 2020.

Project 21’s Stacy Swimp on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Personal Responsibility

Here are some words of wisdom from Project 21 spokesman Stacy Swimp about properly commemorating Martin Luther King Day.  They are taken from an interview that Stacy gave to Michigan Live in 2011 after he spoke at a King Day event held at Northwood University in Midland, Michigan:

This year, Stacy would like to add this lesson from a notable speech by Dr. King:

In June of 1965, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. gave the speech “Remaining Awake Through A Great Revolution” at the Oberlin College commencement ceremony.  In that speech, he said: “There are all too many people who, in some great period of social change, fail to achieve the new mental outlooks that the new situation demands.”

After successfully leading the movement to pass the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, Dr. King was transitioning.  He was focusing on a message of personal responsibility to make the most of the freedoms won.  No longer, therefore, should we be talking about a dream. Instead, we should — as Dr. King did up until his death — be talking and walking a message of individual responsibility and making the most of a dream realized.

When Bureaucrats Stymie Science

In an article in Defining Ideas, a journal of the Hoover Institution, former senior Food and Drug Administration official (and Hoover Fellow) Dr. Henry I. Miller and I examine problems with how the government is making an important decision about vaccine policy.

Unlike op-eds, where space is quite limited, this piece illustrates in detail how the administration is abusing power, misleading the public, ignoring science, and orchestrating a process that could lead to dangerous outcomes.

As we conclude,

Government bureaucrats usually hold others to strict standards, rules, and prescribed procedures. This administration, in particular, has repeatedly promised to set a high bar for honesty and transparency. How ironic, then, that this “public” process has been so murky and problematic.

Please take some time to read the full article.

Project 21 Speaks Out on Obama’s Request for More Debt

In a one-line letter to Congress that was sent on January 12, President Obama announced his intention to seek a $1.2 trillion increase in the national debt ceiling.

As part of the deal reached with Congress last August, Obama had the ability to request multiple increases in the debt ceiling.  This was his final opportunity to do so.  This proposed increase of America’s borrowing limit — to $16.4 trillion, which is said to put the nation’s debt over the its economic output — is expected to last until just after the November elections.

Congress has 15 days to reject Obama’s request, but the President can veto their “resolution of disapproval.”  An override of that veto would likely be difficult.

Project 21’s Ak’Bar ShabazzProject 21 spokesman Ak’Bar Shabazz thinks that all this spending is “unsustainable,” out-of-control and duplicitous.  Ak’Bar said:

It’s clear that our government is becoming increasingly dysfunctional.  We obviously cannot afford our current level of spending.  The road Obama has us traveling on right now has a cliff at its end.  But instead of eliminating unnecessary programs and reducing spending across the board, he simply wants a higher spending limit.  This is unsustainable.  Before he was the commander in chief, Obama seemed to know this very well.  He spoke passionately against debt increases.  But since he’s gotten to spend the money on his favorite projects, his opinions have mysteriously changed.  

Project 21’s Coby DillardDespite his legal right to initiate the debt increase, Project 21 spokesman Coby Dillard believes that this move will ultimately sully President Obama’s place in history.  Coby said:

President Obama’s request to raise the debt ceiling a third time in this fiscal year underscores the culture of fiscal irresponsibility that has become the hallmark of his administration.  Instead of making the hard choices of cutting government spending and enacting true entitlement reform, the President appears content to leave behind massive deficits for future generations to clean up.  History will view the Obama Administration as an overly expanded and regulatory government that made the conscious decision to forgo a fiscally responsible course in order to pursue an aggressive, overreaching and fiscally reckless agenda.

Famous “F-Words” for $100, Alex

source: iStock PhotoA week and a day after the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case about obscenity on broadcast television, ABC is planning to make history with what some think is the first television show to feature a child using the “f-word.”

On the January 18 broadcast of the hit show “Modern Family,” in an episode entitled “Little Bo Bleep,” the two-and-a-half year-old daughter of one of the couples on the show picks up the offending word and panic (and hilarity!) follows as fears mount that she’ll say the word publicly at an upcoming wedding.

How can ABC get away with this?  The viewer will never actually hear little Lilly say the word.  But, like last year’s CBS sitcom “$#*! My Dad Says,” it’s an inside joke to which everyone knows the punchline.

“Modern Family” creator Steve Levitan calls is “a very natural story,” but acknowledges they “had to really convince ABC” to break this new ground.  Why did network executives let them?  Most likely because of the show’s ratings and critical acclaim.  Levitan confided to EW.com: “ABC will tell you that ‘Modern Family’ gets away with a lot.”

Does it really?  Broadcast television has been headed down a sinkhole lately when it comes to vulgarity.  If anything, Levitan and his show deserve points for doing it stylishly — and a little bit later in the evening (9:00PM eastern).

Case in point: “2 Broke Girls” on CBS.  The show regularly features a string of jokes about sex (including rape), gynecology-related topics and jokes at the expense of immigrants and Asians that some consider racist.  And this is at 8:00PM eastern on Mondays.  Remember when that used to be called the family hour?

NBC obviously doesn’t.  Tonight is their premiere of “Happy Hour Wednesdays” during the family hour that contains “Whitney” (moved from Thursdays at 9:30PM eastern and coincidentally from the same person who created “2 Broke Girls”) and “Are You There, Chelsea?” (from the similarly-minded Chelsea Handler, with the title rearranged from the original name of her best-selling book Are You There, Vodka?  It’s Me, Chelsea).

It’s interesting that this comes right when the U.S. Supreme Court is debating how much government can regulate the content of the broadcast spectrum.  In the case of Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., the justices are seeking to determine what can be said on broadcast stations (as opposed to cable) as well as what constitutes this “safe haven” for consumers.

Currently, as was argued in the Court, networks deal with what they consider vague and shifting rules.  For instance, why was it not alright for Nicole Richie to say the f-word and the s-word during the live broadcast of the Billboard Awards but it was alright to air “Saving Private Ryan” uncut?

Chief Justice John Roberts, the only member of the Court with young children, was exasperated by the entire situation.  During arguments, he pleaded:

All we are asking for, what the government is asking for, is a few [broadcast] channels where… they are not going to hear the s-word and the f-word, they are not going to see nudity.

Justice Antonin Scalia added that the government “is entitled to insist upon a certain modicum of decency.”  Justice Elena Kagan speculated that cursing and nudity in a Steven Spielberg film (such as “Saving Private Ryan” and “Schindler’s List”) is a special exemption afforded only to Spielberg.

But don’t forget the potty-mouthed baby.  That’s a major concern.  Those other shows are known quantities.  Viewers expect the ribald humor there.  Not so much on “Modern Family.”  That is — or it was — a show that most people could watch without finding much controversy (even with a gay couple as star players).

Project 21’s Cherylyn Harley LeBonAs Project 21 spokeswoman Cherylyn Harley LeBon says:

As a mom, I realize our kids say and repeat things we wish they would not say.  However, hearing toddlers use profanity on broadcast television is simply not appropriate nor is it cute, regardless of whether it happens in real life or not.  I think we are chartering into new territory, which certainly will not benefit our TV-viewing children.

There’s also the factor that Levitan and friends think they are breaking new ground.  They seem to be putting themselves up there with “Star Trek,” which slipped the first interracial kiss onto national television in 1968 with little controversy (it was in the future!).  “Modern Family” is opening the window with implied kiddie-cursing – making it possible that a future show may not be restrained to innuendo.

As “2 Broke Girls” co-creator Michael Patrick King said recently to the Television Critics Association, “8:30 on Monday on CBS… in 2012… is a very different world than 8:30 on CBS in 1994.”

But must it always be a slide in the crass direction?

It’s kind of funny that the controversial show of this season – NBC’s “The Playboy Club” (quickly cancelled in a combination of bad ratings and scandal-averse advertisers) – was much ado about nothing.  It was a rip-off of “Mad Men” chic whose most provocative aspect was its name.  And it was on at 10:00PM eastern.

Those concerned about real controversy should have looked earlier in the schedule – when the kids are still awake.

Project 21’s Stacys Condemn Obama’s Recess Appointments

Senators may have been away from Washington on January 4, but that doesn’t mean they were in recess. Source: iStock PhotoOn January 4, President Obama — whose official bio notes he was a constitutional scholar — decided the Senate was out of session long enough for his needs and claimed recess appointment authority to install Richard Cordray as the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (a new bureaucracy created by the Dodd-Frank bill) and Sharon Block, Richard Griffin and Terrence F. Flynn to be board members of the National Labor Relations Board.

In a scathing critique of the action in the Washington Post, former attorney general Ed Meese and Todd Gaziano (a former Justice Department lawyer who advised previous presidents on recess appointments) wrote that “never before has a president purported to make a ‘recess’ appointment when the Senate is demonstrably not in recess.  This is a constitutional abuse of a high order.”

As pointed out by senators and constitutional experts, a president has the ability to make recess appointments when the Senate is out of session for at least three days.  The Senate, however, was operating in a “pro forma” session and not technically in recess.  Nor did the Senate have the authority from the House of Representatives to be in recess — when Obama made the most recent appointments.

A former University of Chicago Law School lecturer on constitutional matters, as Obama was, should realize this creates an impediment to exercising recess appointment power.  But it appears that Obama picks and chooses the reasoning for his actions these days.  After all, the new way of doing business at the White House is “we can’t wait.”

The other branches of government appear to be a drag on this ambitious executive, but it doesn’t mean Obama can ignore them and the rules.  As Meese and Gaziano point out:

The president and anyone else may object that the Senate is conducting “pro forma” sessions, but that does not render them constitutionally meaningless, as some have argued. In fact, the Senate did pass a bill during a supposedly “pro forma” session on Dec. 23, a matter the White House took notice of since the president signed the bill into law. The president cannot pick and choose when he deems a Senate session to be “real.”

Surely, Obama wouldn’t want to set a precedent that could be abused by a more conservative successor.  Or does he not care about anything but the here and now?

Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA), the ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, says this move by Obama “upended years of Senate practice and more than 90 years of Justice Department precedent.”  Grassley wrote in USA Today that he wants “a full accounting of his change in position” on the viability of recess appointments from when Obama was a senator (Obama opposed President George W. Bush’s recess appointment of Ambassador John Bolton as United Nations ambassador in 2005 during a legitimate recess as “the wrong thing to do”).  Meese and Gaziano say Obama should come clean about what — if any — advice he received from the Justice Department prior to making the January 4 appointments.  Grassley also suggested blocks on future Obama nominations in protest of Obama’s January 4 appointment spree.

Project 21’s Stacy WashingtonProject 21 spokeswoman Stacy Washington suggests doing more.  She suggests striking the funding for the CFPB, citing both the unconstitutional nature of the Cordray appointment and the unaccountable nature of the new bureaucracy.  She says:

Using a non-recess to make a recess appointment is absolutely outside of the bounds of the Constitution.  The Congress should refuse to fund this new and largely unaccountable appointment.  This is part and parcel of Obama’s new strategy of moving ahead with his radical agenda while circumventing the will of Congress.  At first glance, it may appear Obama had no choice — but look again!  What we are seeing in action here is a complete absence of leadership.  Without the ability to lead in the House and Senate, the President resorts to political tactics.  In the end, it’s the people of this country that lose.

Project 21’s Stacy SwimpStacy Swimp, another Project 21 spokesman, suggests a darker motivation.  He thinks that Obama is hedging his bets to compensate for his uncertain political future.  He notes:

In spite of the President’s claim that his recent “recess appointments” are granted by the Constitution, constitutional scholars such as Berkeley’s John Yoo and the University of Chicago’s Richard Epstein beg to differ.

President Obama’s intention might be to position both the NLRB and CFPB to perpetuate his agenda beyond his possible tenure and to maintain their ability to successfully facilitate big government politicians and enable the unauthorized and possibly unlawful regulatory abuses by executive agencies.

In the final analysis, Obama’s appointments serve as not only a bold disregard of the powers granted to Congress, but indicate a unending commitment to undermining the constitutional principles of free enterprise and open and fair competition.  Through these NLRB appointments, for example, Obama has assured that — at least until 2013 — the NLRB is equipped to wage warfare against all who oppose unfair labor practices, forced unionism and economic exploitation of the American taxpayers.

Illinois Residents Need ID to Buy Drano, But Not to Vote

Project 21’s Stacy SwimpOne of the more controversial laws enacted at the beginning of 2012 is one in Illinois that requires people who purchase caustic substances such as drain cleaner to present government-issued identification to the store clerk, who then makes a detailed report of the buyer and the substance.

Passed into law after drain cleaner was used as a weapon in an attack that left two Chicago women scarred, one hardware store owner told CBS News that this new regulation now requires his staff to report on the purchases of dozens of products.  Rather than deal with the hassle or customer backlash, the Jewel-Osco grocery chain reportedly removed covered items from their stores altogether.

Retailers who fail to comply can be fined up to $1,500 per incident.

While Illinois now has a law requiring government-issued identification to buy Drano to protect the citizenry, it lacks similar means to protect them from voter fraud.

There is currently proposed legislation to require photo identification in order to vote, but a similar bill died in committee in 2008 on a partisan vote.  As leadership has not changed hands since then, it can be expected that the current bills will languish.  State Representative Jack Franks (D-Woodstock), the mind and the will behind the Liquid-Plumr Limitation, did not serve in the committee that tabled the voter ID measure but was a member of the legislature at the time.

Opponents of the ballot protection measure in 2008 – much like critics of similar measures in force or under consideration today – said such a requirement as getting a valid ID would create a cumbersome burden to some voters.  But now the hypothetical poor old woman without a driver’s license in Illinois can still vote but cannot keep her bathtub from backing up without having to call a plumber (likely at least $50 to walk in the front door vs. $6.99).  Where is the compassion for those with bad pipes?

Project 21 member Stacy Swimp, who had a certification in pesticide application, understands why lawmakers might want to further regulate certain acids and other dangerous chemicals.  But he also realizes that there is a disconnect in logic when the same people wanting an ID at a hardware store don’t think the same vigilance should apply at a polling place.

Stacy says:

Having been certified as a pesticide applicator in the past and knowing the harm pesticides can inflict if they are used maliciously, I understand why some might want to have a means of identifying who obtains them and for what reasons.  The same might apply to concerns about guns, fertilizers that can make explosives, over-the-counter medications that can make illicit drugs and – in this case – acids and other dangerous chemicals that could be used as weapons.  So it’s only logical that people who have these concerns would also want similar identification rules to prevent vote fraud.

The new law in Illinois tracking the sale of Drano was motivated by concern over a single incident.  There are many instances of documented voter fraud all over the nation in just the past few years – and that voter fraud in Illinois in 1960 may have thrown the presidential election.  If people must provide a government-issued ID to unclog their drains, they certainly should do the same for the very important task of selecting their elected leaders.