Featuring the Work and Ideas of the National Center for Public Policy Research & Project 21
Imagine the outcry if there were resort vacation packages being offered exclusively to white men. While that may not have been unusual during the era of “Mad Men,” it’s certainly not something that would be tolerated today.
So why is self-segregation okay when it’s other genders and races doing the separating?
Just imagine: what if a group of fraternity members – all white, all male – said they were just going to regularly [exclusively travel together because of their race and gender]… Let’s see what would happen if someone came out on the news. Vice News ran a story about these [guys]. Those individuals would lose their jobs… Their livelihoods would be changed.
But when it comes to “women of color healing retreats” in Central America that focus on race, and an apparent visceral anger against white Americans, Vice News Tonight ran a non-skeptical story. The profile, which aired earlier this year but recently resurfaced, featured women who said this sort of vacation that “bans white people” was the “only way to escape racism” and be “as open and as honest” as they can.
Retreat organizer Andrea X called it a “safe space” from white people, and asserted “let us have our space – let us have our room… you’ve done enough damage.” For those who can’t travel to her retreat, she suggested people of color “start forming their own [safe] space there” apart from white society. If she had her way, “white people shouldn’t even have passports” and should stay in America.
“This actually is bigotry,” Horace told host Laura Ingraham. “This actually is racism.”
Look, what we’re talking about is people using justified language – in their own minds – for saying “it’s okay not to associate with them or their kind. We don’t want to travel with them. We don’t want them to be able to fly…
Any time that my grandparents would have heard phrases like that, they knew what they meant and what they were trying to express. It was separatism. It was “you stay over there.” And, as a nation, we have come together to recognize that that kind of bigotry and that kind of ignorance shouldn’t be welcomed.
…We would be seeing boycotts. We would be seeing… heads exploding if Expedia allowed you to purchase your whites-only cruise. Do you understand how seriously the left would take that?
Project 21 member Emery McClendon agrees with Horace. He also took issue with the political aspect of some attendees such as the one who was unchallenged when she said President Trump “is completely racist.” Off the air, Emery added:
When I first saw this, I really thought it was a prank. If this same type of vacation was offered to a whites-only client base, the civil rights lawsuits would be too numerous to count.
Why aren’t these women instead getting together with those whom they now feel like getting away from – to find ways to mend these hard feelings? It would seem to me that efforts to bring us closer together would benefit us all.
And they want to blame most of their feelings on our President, but they fail to mention that President Trump has reached out to blacks and women of color more than any president in our nation’s history.
Additionally, Project 21 member Derryck Green, Ph.D., called this all “pathetic on every imaginable level.” He said:
If I understand this “vacation” correctly, a group of middle-class black women are paying for time without whites to engage in behaviors and activities – eating vegan food, meditating and doing yoga – that are popularized by middle-class white women. This lack of self-awareness deserves ridicule much more than condemnation.
But, to the point, how does willfully engaging in racial segregation actually combat racial segregation? Is it because blacks are in control in this scenario? Black segregation is acceptable, but white segregation isn’t? Black racism is better than white racism? How, exactly?
I also think the example of a whites-free vacation is indicative of the increasingly common mindset that lends itself to black fragility – the idea that some blacks need “safe spaces” because they lack the mental or emotional fortitude to deal with “passive aggressiveness” and “microaggressions.”
What kind of “retreat” would these people need if they had to deal with real, rather than perceived, racism? This mentality has been very debilitating for far too many blacks at a time in history when America is the least racist.
America isn’t perfect by any stretch. But what people should ask is how racist can America be if these women (and others like them) are only leaving for ten days? Why come back? These women should take their mental health seriously, “heal” themselves and actually live in places where there are no white people at all.
On the heels of a Secret Service investigation prompted by his tweet that challenged President Donald Trump to a fight, D-list celebrity Tom Arnold is now trying to grab headlines by making obviously false allegations about the National Rifle Association. Project 21 was locked and loaded with the truth to set the record straight.
On the Fox News Channel program “The Ingraham Angle,” Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper explained:
Tom Arnold lives in a little bubble. And, in that special little bubble, there is no possibility of any knowledge of experience that is different from that.
If I lived in the darkest blue parts of the country, I probably too would have this attitude. I grew up in Texas, and it was not unusual – it was actually the opposite. It would be thought of as unusual if people I knew – black, white or brown – weren’t interested in firearms.
While liberal commentator Jonathan Harris suggested that blacks are not the NRA’s “target demo,” Horace pointed out that the NRA is a civil rights organization and has a history of working with the black community to protect their rights, their property and their freedom.
“I joined the NRA at one point,” Horace acknowledged. “I know many people who have. And in fact, in our history as black Americans, the NRA – as a civil rights organization – has played critical roles.”
When Harris noted that blacks have been denied the ability to buy guns for their self-defense in the past, Horace noted those instances were “something that the NRA fought against.” He also noted that Robert F. Williams formed an all-black NRA chapter during the civil rights movement to address Ku Klux Klan violence.
It was another bad earnings report from Dick’s Sporting Goods, coming almost six months after the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project (FEP) first warned CEO Ed Stack that the retailer had made a poor decision by restricting all interested customers from buying firearms, which had been an integral part of the Dick’s inventory.
During the Dick’s third-quarter earnings call, company leaders announced that consolidated sales were down 3.9 percent over the quarter. The company’s decisions to stop selling AR-15 rifles and certain accessories as well as to raise the age limit for gun purchases from 18 to 21 years old were identified as “negatively impacting” sales figures. National Center Vice President David W. Almasi, who attended the Dick’s shareholder meeting last June to speak out against the gun restrictions, says this is proof of a consumer backlash against the company taking an overtly political position:
I warned the Dick’s leadership that they risked boycotts and other backlash over throwing their lot in with the gun-grabbers. In response, CEO Ed Stack told me it was “fine” if I no longer shopped at his stores. Since then, I have shopped elsewhere – and apparently so did a lot of other people who are unhappy about Dick’s disregard for consumer choice and constitutional freedoms.
Closed minds at Dick’s Sporting Goods appear to have closed the wallets of potential customers. Dick’s leaders doubled-down on their anti-gun activism when I asked them to reconsider it. Now a key demographic for their business – hunters, outdoorsmen and average Americans who respect gun rights – have obviously taken their business elsewhere.
From the start, Dick’s leaders recognized the peril in which they put themselves, and they have had to chronicle the consequences during every subsequent earnings call. They may be able to reverse their sliding sales, but I think that window of opportunity is closing fast.
The company restricted gun sales after the school shooting in Parkland, Florida last February. The company also reportedly hired lobbyists to promote gun restrictions. At the shareholder meeting, Stack acknowledged to David that the move “did alienate some gunowners,” but insisted that “we’re not going to change” the policy and that “we as a company and a board stand by our decision.”
David warned Stack that Dick’s actions could mean “the hunters won’t be back. The supporters of the Second Amendment… won’t be back.” After the meeting ended, Stack asked Almasi, “I suspect we won’t see you in our stores?” When David said “probably not,” Stack loudly replied: “Fine!”
In addition to the 3.9 percent consolidated sales loss, hunting-related sales have suffered a double-digit decline, and outdoor equipment sales have also decreased. These drop-offs are likely similarly due in part to the new gun sales policies, according to the earnings call. Hunting-related products have been almost completely removed from ten underperforming stores, and the fate of Dick’s affiliated Field and Stream stores may also hang in the balance.
Dick’s leaders can’t say they weren’t warned. At the shareholder meeting, David said:
Mr. Stack, you knew the risk of these political moves from the start. During your March 13 earnings call, you admitted: “There are just going to be some people who just don’t shop us anymore for anything.”…
Sales are so anemic and relations with gun manufacturers such as Mossberg so poor right now that you’ve even indicated Dick’s might get out the gun business entirely. Meanwhile, Sportsman’s Warehouse reports that their gun sales and net sales were up 15 percent during the first quarter. That company credits consumer backlash against companies such as Dick’s as partially responsible for its success.
The company is willfully giving up money. It has damaged its reputation by lending its voice and its resources to those who want to abolish the 2nd Amendment, even while the vast majority of Americans support the 2nd Amendment. Thirty percent of American adults own guns, and another 11 percent live with someone who does. You’ve now alienated them…
On the recent call, Stack tried to downplay the gun policy issue by saying that overall gun sales, as tracked by the government, are down. But questions about depressed sales and Dick’s ability to maintain customers in the hunting sector were brought up by several financial advisors during the call.
With the company now expecting to be down in sales between three and four percent over all of 2018, David – as an investor in the company and former customer – noted that the concerns he shared with the leadership of Dick’s Sporting Goods are clearly coming true:
When I want to shop for sporting goods, there’s a Dick’s at my local mall. There’s a Modell’s across the street from that mall, and a Walmart nearby. I can shop the Internet to have things sent to my home. Of all of these choices, only Dick’s leaders have given me a reason not to shop at their stores. And I know I’m not the only one who feels this way.
Conservatives have traditionally not participated in boycotts, but the assault on our rights and attacks on our values have awakened a sleeping consumer giant. People offended by Dick’s stance on guns also buy tents, coolers and golf gear. Retailers such as Dick’s and Target are now feeling the economic pressure of political decisions.
The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project has also confronted corporate leaders about anti-gun policies at the annual shareholder meetings of Bank of America and United Airlines. At The Federalist, FEP Director Justin Danhof, Esq. wrote that “[c]orporate America has become the muscle of American liberalism,” explaining how liberals are using the business community “to bolster and justify the cause” against the NRA and gun rights.
Are you ready for 24 hours of Al Gore and his friends lecturing you about climate change?!
Next Monday night is the start of former vice president and perpetual doomsayer Al Gore’s “24 Hours of Reality.” Hosted by his Climate Reality Project, it’s the 8th annual (who knew?) broadcast designed to draw attention to the dire predictions of world suffering that will occur if we don’t heed his call for increased regulation to combat “climate change.”
“The forthcoming United Nations-sponsored climate change conference in Poland provides Al Gore with yet another opportunity to trumpet an inevitable global disaster unless we take drastic action to curb our use of fossil fuels. He has a 30-year plus record of making dire predictions, which are invariably inaccurate,” said National Center Senior Fellow Bonner Cohen, Ph.D. “Gore shows no understanding of the ever-changing geological and atmospheric conditions that have determined the earth’s climate over the past four and one-half billion years. Ice ages have come and gone, and carbon dioxide levels have been as much as 20 higher than they are today, and he has no explanation for any of this.”
Mind, you, Gore doesn’t have a great record at predicting the end of the world. When he released his “An Inconvenient Truth” documentary in 2006, he speculated that the polar ice cap could melt completely, Mount Kilimanjaro could be snow-free and New York City flooded within ten years. Obviously, two years past that deadline, none of these things came close to happening.
This doesn’t stop Gore’s bandwagon. He will be joined again this year by “[c]elebrities, musicians, elected officials and thought leaders” to continue on his crusade. This year, seeing a concern among American voters about health care issues, his new theme is less apocalypse and more “to highlight the climate-health connection around the world.” He now proclaims, “Our health depends on the health of the planet.”
It’s a red flag when celebrities get top billing, and the alleged brains of the operation go last. Dontchathink?
But it’s not that this isn’t trying to be an intellectual thing. Gore will host many slide presentations throughout the broadcast. He will also interview people such as the president of Finland, hang out with mechanical engineer Bill Nye and host the world premieres of singles from singer Kate Nash and Portugal. The Man (it’s a band – from Sarah Palin’s hometown).
Yet we still can’t ignore that Gore – despite all his campaigning – was found to not be practicing what he preaches. It a tweet hyping the broadcast, Gore said “[f]ossil fuels are driving the climate crisis and threatening our health.” If that’s the case, his own personal power usage has helped to fuel the current crisis.
In 2017, on the eve of Gore releasing “An Inconvenient Sequel,” the National Center issued a blockbuster report finding the Gore estate outside Nashville “devoured more than 21 times the amount of electricity than the average American household.”
Gore representative Betsy McManus called the National Center “climate deniers” and told the New Republic that everything was cool because Gore purchased carbon offsets. The magazine reported:
She didn’t dispute Johnson’s claims of Gore’s energy use, rather his assertion that Gore has been ineffective at getting as much of his energy consumption as possible from renewable sources. “Vice President Gore leads a carbon neutral life by purchasing green energy, reducing carbon impacts and offsetting any emissions that cannot be avoided, all within the constraints of an economy that still relies too heavily on dirty fossil fuels,” McManus said.
But is the practice of buying indulgences to keep up with a high-energy lifestyle while continually telling others to check their power privilege logical? Is it fair? Bonner doesn’t see eye-to-eye with Gore and his followers on this topic.
“Gore isn’t about to let the ‘climate crisis’ interfere with his lavish lifestyle. He demands sacrifices from ordinary people while hobnobbing with Hollywood and Silicon Valley elites. Oblivious to the suffering his anti-energy policies would inflict on the world’s poorest people, he is content to deny them access to reliable and affordable energy, thereby perpetuating their poverty and undermining their health,” Bonner said.
With all of the proposals out there for reforming the American criminal justice system, National Center Senior Fellow Horace Cooper warns that the one that is focused on ending bail – supported by the radical Arnold Foundation – “would make our system worse than it is presently.”
In a Daily Caller commentary, Horace wrote:
These so-called reformers seek to eliminate this option altogether claiming that it would be better to either detain individuals prior to trial or else release them with no financial bond of any kind prior to trial.
They argue that the use of bail makes it harder for poorer defendants to stay out of jail prior to trial. The problem with that is there are any number of companies and services that will assist you with getting a bond. Only in extreme cases are those options not available.
Creating a no-bail legal system would likely put unnecessary and traumatic stress on the judicial process. Faced with either letting someone free without repercussions after being charged or sending them to jail, the latter is an obvious choice for judges and prosecutors worried that the accused might try to disappear. But this also means that increased incarceration would probably lead to overcrowded prisons and increased expenses – not to mention making the legal system look harsh.
Horace concluded that the end result of such “reform” is predictable: “Overwhelm the criminal justice system and simply stop jailing people.”
“There’s a big problem with this approach,” he pointed out:
Assault, robbery and burglary aren’t minor crimes and they are treated as serious crimes as a way to prevent their occurrence. If punishments and accountability recede, just as night follows day, a surge in these crimes of violence would occur.
This is obvious to most Americans. It’s for that reason that organizations with this radical vision try to downplay their goal. Take the Houston-based Laura and John Arnold Foundation. They’ve been traveling across the country promoting what they call their Public Safety Assessment tool – a means of scientifically sorting defendants into categories for either pre-trial detention or release with no bond.
A tool? Will this tool create a happy medium that leads to workable reform? Unfortunately, that’s not the case:
Their “tool” overwhelmingly recommends release with no bond. And in the places where it’s been tried, the results have been very disturbing. Take New Jersey – after the program was set up and financial bail was eliminated, Jersey City police officers complained about a rash of rearrests of people with a history of gun violence who’d been released rather than detained. A murder of a famous San Francisco photographer made international news last year when it was discovered that his assailant had been released thanks to the Arnold’s pre-trial detention tool.
The inherent problem is that the Arnold Foundation is trying to reform a part of the legal system that actually works. It is also trying to compromise a protected right. Horace explained:
Notably bail is a constitutional right. Under the 8thAmendment defendants are guaranteed that they will be considered for bail. And bail allows society to balance the risk to the community with the presumption of innocence for the individual.
Moreover, the record of success with finance-backed bail is quite remarkable. The overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed studies show that bail works to see to it that defendants show up for trial and not re-offend prior to doing so. Those same studies show that release without a financial bond has an appalling success rate.
Yet as the Arnold Foundation tries to portray itself as moderate and bipartisan, its dangerous agenda is obvious upon closer examination. Its criminal justice reform plan to eliminate bail, creating chaos for our legal system, is proof that the Foundation is outside of the mainstream.
To read Horace’s Daily Caller commentary – “When Criminal Justice Reform Doesn’t Reform Criminal Justice” – in its entirety, click here.
In a point-counterpoint for InsideSources about whether teachers in public schools should be allowed to freely discuss religious issues with their students, Project 21 member Derryck Green pointed out that “comprehensive education necessarily includes learning and discussing issues of faith.”
But, as he noted in his commentary, which was reprinted in newspapers such as the Charleston Post and Courier and Naples Daily News, “[t]his is not an easy process when rules keeping religion off school grounds are rigidly enforced.” Specifically, he noted, the problem has to do with limitations on teachers “discuss[ing] Christianity with their students.”
There’s no reason that teachers cannot have informative conversations with their students about the role that religion has played in society and its indelible impact on history. To not do so, Derryck explained, puts students at an obvious disadvantage:
The reality is that the majority of people on the planet are religious. The majority of people in human history have been religious. Even most Americans are still religious, though the number is declining. Thus American students should be exposed to religion (or religions), if for no other reason than to have a functional knowledge of faith and principles such as doctrine, dogma, religious practice and spirituality. Students should understand religious influences on human ideas, thoughts, attitudes and behaviors – even if they decide not to follow any specific religion.
Knowledge about religion has incredible value. Religion can impart wisdom, morality, civility and mutuality. If done correctly, it regulates human impulses and bad behavior. It distinguishes between the sacred and the profane, and encourages charity and good behavior. Those who study religion will learn how others relate to the divine (or deities) through faith, and on the flip side, they can see the practical consequences of bad religion.
Nonetheless, there has been a purge of religion from the public school curriculum. The consequences of this folly are obvious:
The resulting unfamiliarity with religion has done a tremendous educational disservice to generations of schoolchildren. Separating religious instruction from school has suppressed intellectual curiosity and exploration – reinforcing ignorance about the significance of religious impact on human progress, the rise of civilizations and overall global development.
Limiting exposure to religion leaves too few with a functional knowledge of it. Such inexperience has detrimental consequences later in life. Zealous prevention of religious instruction also creates and reinforces hysteria regarding people who take religion seriously.
As a result, religious ignorance permeates our culture.
In the commentary, Derryck cited a New York Times editor who acknowledged that the establishment media doesn’t “get” religion. He also provided an example of a reporter who misinterpreted the Bible.
“Much of our society’s religious illiteracy can be overcome,” Derryck advised, “if teachers are encouraged to engage in unbiased discussions of religion rather than to religiously avoid it.”
InsideSources content is read by around 25 million people a month and is syndicated to almost 300 of the top American newspapers. To read Derryck’s commentary in full, click here.
It sometimes seems like the government has more regard for rocks, trees and animals than it might have for a young black man looking for a good job or starting a business of his own.
Building projects must go through a government-mandated process to make sure they don’t have any unnecessary negative impact on the environment. Shouldn’t there be a similar safeguard to check on the economic impact of regulations before the government imposes them on people?
In a new commentary published by the Daily Caller, Project 21 member Derrick Hollie makes the case for the Trump Administration requiring “Minority Impact Assessments” on all new regulations before they are instituted. He describes such an assessment as “a speedbump to keep bureaucrats from rushing into rulemaking that hurts opportunity for those who sincerely want a fair shot at moving up the socio-economic ladder.”
It’s also, he noted, something that the President can initiate “with the stroke of a pen.” That’s an important thing to consider since a divided government is just over the horizon – likely stalling most legislative efforts over the next two years.
Regulations affect everyone, but they can have a disparate impact on the black community. Job creation and specific burdens on small business are two areas in which black Americans may find themselves being disproportionately impacted by proposed rules related to things like labor requirements, air quality and fuel efficiency. As Derrick explains:
A U.S. Chamber of Commerce study estimates that federal regulations cost the U.S. economy more than $1.9 trillion in lost productivity and added expenses. It also estimates regulatory costs are 20 percent greater for firms with 50 or fewer employers – the same type of business most commonly owned by black entrepreneurs.
For black Americans in general, regulations can have a similarly negative – and disproportionate – impact. They can harm job opportunities. They can drive up consumers’ prices. They can sometimes even prevent lifesaving products from coming to market.
But the Minority Impact Assessment idea for proposed regulation can provide relief:
Recognizing that systemic racial discrimination is gone, the Project 21 black leadership network is focused on eliminating non-racial barriers to black prosperity. Regulatory burden is one such barrier. Their “Blueprint for a Better Deal for Black America” provides 57 recommendations for eliminating conditions blocking access to opportunity and causing unfair levels of poverty, crime and other social ills in the black community.
Easing the disproportionate strain of regulation is a key recommendation in Project 21’s Blueprint. It’s something President Trump can do with the stroke of a pen.
An executive order requiring federal agencies to conduct a “Minority Impact Assessment” on all future federal regulation would be a major step toward increasing economic opportunity for black Americans…
A Minority Impact Assessment would create a list of all the positive and negative impacts a proposed regulation would have on factors including employment, wages, consumer prices and homeownership. This regulatory impact would then be analyzed for its effect on minorities in contrast to the general population.
Through this assessment, agencies can then identify any negative aspects of proposed regulations in advance, find alternatives with lesser harm to minority communities or at least provide a clear notice that the government’s regulatory desire outweighs minority groups’ best interests.
To read all of Derrick’s Daily Caller commentary – “Regulation Impedes Black Progress, But the White House Can Help” – click here.
As is increasingly common, our nation’s traditional day for the appreciation of family, freedom, good fortune and food is under siege by the joyless few who seek to cast our society as racist to the core. Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper, in a pre-holiday appearance on the Fox News Channel, referred to this and the ongoing campaign against Chick-fil-A as liberal attempts to exercise a “heckler’s veto” over the rest of America.
Horace joined a panel discussion on “The Ingraham Angle” about a Campus Reform video in which college students were quick to call Thanksgiving “racist” because of the alleged exploitation of American Indians and a “celebration [of] ongoing genocide.”
Panelist Cathy Areu attempted to justify that young people “believe” the allegations against Thanksgiving in part because the “Addams Family Values” movie – a work of fiction as well as a theatrical flop released seven years before most current college freshmen were born – “did make that point.” Areu failed to mention that particular scene also advocated revenge-motivated mayhem, arson and possible cannibalism as well, but we won’t go there right now.
In explaining the true meaning of Thanksgiving and the harm liberals are trying to inject into it, Horace said:
It’s really sad when you hear people that live in a country where they are blessed in so many special ways, and it’s a time that we would normally think of… Let’s see family. Let’s see our loved ones. Let’s take some time to be thankful for the great things that are going on. In fact, it’s even a time to reach out to those who aren’t doing so well.
What it’s not a time to do is… this idea that people are sitting round gloating in some way, or that people are wondering about what happened 250, 350 years ago to which group and that kind of thing.
This is uniquely a time when our country acknowledges how appreciative we are with the things that have been accomplished in our lives and in this country. This is what Thanksgiving is about.
The panel then talked about how administrators at Rider University in New Jersey passed over Chick-fil-A for a potential spot on campus because – they claimed – the very popular fast-food chain’s “corporate values have not sufficiently progressed enough to align” with those of university leaders. It was reportedly the overwhelming choice of the students.
Chick-fil-A has been branded as “hate chicken” by some because of the views of some of its founders and top executives about marriage and sexuality issues. But the chain says it “treat[s] every person with honor, dignity and respect — regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender.” In 2018, Chick-fil-A ranked first among fast food customers participating in the American Customer Satisfaction Index’s Restaurant Report.
Calling out the petty discrimination against Chick-fil-A on the part of the university, Horace said:
What we’re seeing at a university when it does something like this is it’s no longer teaching young people that they need to understand and be tolerant of different perspectives.
And they are also saying, if you are a young person or even a faculty member who happens – as I do – to enjoy Chick-fil-A and the services and great products that they provide, that these people shouldn’t get any voice? They should get any expression of the positive feelings they have about it?
It’s really, really a narrow-minded act of intolerance to say “No, we can’t have Chick-fil-A – not at this university” all because a few people – most of them on the faculty – just don’t like the particular political views of a few members of the executive board over at Chick-fil-A.
If America’s gonna be run like that, then you’re gonna have to stop shopping at the mall, driving cars – all kinds of things – once we start digging into what the executive board of a given corporation thinks about an issue.
Wealthy left-wing activists John and Laura Arnold are “coming for your guns.”
In a cautionary commentary published by InsideSources, National Center Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. warned that the couple – whom he previously called “mini-George Soroses” – is “spending a small fortune to try to muzzle the National Rifle Association and erode 2nd Amendment rights.”
While largely unknown, the Arnolds pose a very real threat to the values of the freedom movement with their lavish philanthropic support for the leftist agenda. Justin explained:
The power couple behind the Laura and John Arnold Foundation has been quietly funding a broad array of leftist initiatives since opening their doors in 2008. Not as visible as socialist misanthrope George Soros or as vocal as radical environmentalist Tom Steyer, the Arnolds are equally as effective.
Since 2011, the Arnolds have disbursed more than $1 billion to fund causes such as abortion, single-payer health care and far-left “journalism” as well as efforts to defund conservative public policy organizations. Now they are laser-focused on gun reform.
Like fellow liberal billionaire Michael Bloomberg, the Arnolds are sinking millions into efforts to restrict the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. Unlike Bloomberg, the Arnolds do so without fanfare and seek to appear nonpartisan. Justin noted how Bloomberg’s bluster actually worked against him in some communities when residents “pushed back against Bloomberg’s big-city persona that seeks to instill far-left New York City values across the country.”
“That’s where the Arnolds come in. They are hoping to put on a ‘nonpartisan’ face to increase credibility for their gun control efforts,” Justin wrote. “But it’s a façade.”
A key part of this façade has been described by Laura Arnold as “research into the causes of and solutions to gun violence in America.” But the Arnold’s $20 million grant to the RAND Corporation for this project and the intention to try to raise another $30 million from like-minded allies obviously prompts speculation that these tens of millions will create an “incentive to conduct a study that comes to the Arnolds’ desired conclusions.”
In addition to this report, the Arnolds also try to cultivate a nonpartisan image for themselves through token grants to center-right groups. Justin pointed out:
The Arnolds have a long history of massively funding extremely liberal causes while throwing a few pennies to conservative organizations to work on non-controversial issues. They have worked tirelessly to look bipartisan, but it’s simply not true.
InsideSources content is read by around 25 million people a month and is syndicated to almost 300 of the top American newspapers. To read all of Justin’s commentary, “Get Your Gun, Before Laura Arnold Does,” click here.
Billionaire philanthropist John Arnold desperately wants to appear as an “equal opportunity special interest pot stirrer,” but his personal giving – along with his wife, Laura – shows they are very invested in the advancement of a far-left agenda.
One place they are particularly prolific in helping out the left, though they don’t appear to want to make it known, is their support for the abortion industry.
In a commentary published at The Federalist, Justin Danhof, Esq. – director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project – wrote about the Arnolds’ shyness about being major personal funders of pro-abortion activism:
Why would a billionaire couple who funds the abortion industry be ashamed of it? It’s not an easy question to answer. After all, liberals frequently spend enormous resources and political capital to promote abortion and attack anyone who supports the right to life. However, one particular billionaire couple seems to be trying to hide their support for abortion.
Publicly, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation has given between $12.5 million and $30 million to groups such as the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc., Center for Reproductive Rights, Guttmacher Institute Inc., Planned Parenthood Texas Votes and the National Network of Abortion Funds. But the discovery of a defunct Arnold-affiliated website shows they also personally funded political activities for Planned Parenthood to the tune of $5 million to $10 million between 2015 and 2017 alone.
Yet the Arnolds don’t appear excited to take the credit others get for bankrolling abortion activists:
Leftists often moralize about the constitutional “right” to terminate a baby’s life, so why would the Arnolds attempt to erase their personal giving from public view? One answer may lie in the Arnolds’ attempt to style themselves as bipartisan. Work produced by other liberal billionaires such as George Soros, Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg is instantly tainted by partisanship. The Arnolds are perhaps working diligently to avoid the same fate.
The Arnolds want nothing more than to be seen as middle-of-the-road philanthropists… While it’s true that their foundation gives to some conservative groups (albeit largely to work on bipartisan issues), their personal giving skews far to the left.
Considering the polarizing nature and racial underpinnings of abortion politics, as Justin pointed out in his commentary, being out front on the issue is no way to appear “equal opportunity.” But, with the donations Justin exposed, “the cat’s out of the bag.”
To read Justin’s commentary at The Federalist – “Meet the ‘Bipartisan’ Billionaire Couple Quietly Funding Planned Parenthood” – in its entirety, click here.