Featuring the Work and Ideas of the National Center for Public Policy Research & Project 21
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Virginia Governor Ralph Northam recently admitted to wearing blackface in the past. Senator Elizabeth Warren is trying to distance herself from past assertions she is of Native American ancestry. And now Project 21 member Marie Fischer is calling out members of the Trenton, New Jersey City Council for using and defending anti-Semitic language in the course of government business.
Trudeau, Northam and Warren have thus far escaped real damage to their political careers due to their racial insensitivity. Marie isn’t willing to forgive so easily when it comes to Trenton City Council President Kathy McBride and her colleagues:
It’s hard to justify the term “Jewing” someone down as anything but offensive. I know. I’ve tried.
Marie, who is Jewish, writes in a commentary published on the Politichicks website that, when she and some Jewish friends used the term in self-parody, she “still felt a little unsettled by the term.” But it is more unsettling to her when politicians use it “matter-of-factly and justify it.”
In Trenton, McBride was explaining to her colleagues during a closed session how the city saved money on a legal settlement because their attorney (who is Jewish) “was able to wait [the plaintiff] out and Jew her down.” After the remark became public knowledge, one councilmember explained it was simply “a reference to negotiating.” Another dismissed it because the phrase “has been said millions of times.”
“I cannot believe these people,” Marie asserts, “apparently intelligent enough to be elected by their peers, really believe that ‘Jew down’ is simply a harmless verb and not a slander against Jews.”
If they knew history, they would understand it comes from a negative stereotype about Jews being stingy, tight-fisted or excessively frugal. It paints the picture of us as lovers and hoarders of money.
Calling out the Trenton politicians’ “cultural ignorance,” Marie notes that “[t]hey might not consider themselves anti-Semites, but they are espousing words and feelings that mimic those who have a dislike, if not an outright hatred, of Jewish people.”
And she adds that there appears to be a double-standard when it comes to belittling Jewish people in contrast to other minority groups:
All of these incidents make me wonder how most Americans truly feel about the Jewish people. We all know when something racist slips out of the mouth of a politician, a celebrity or a CEO there is an outcry that they be removed from their position. But when an anti-Semitic phrase comes out, there may be complaints but likely no similar repercussions. In fact, as in Trenton, others sometimes run to the defense of the perpetrator as the situation is swept away.
“Why is anti-Semitism not considered the same as racism?” Marie asks. And it’s been weeks since McBride’s comment and “all seems to have been forgiven.” But not to Marie, who writes, “it will not be forgotten.”
To read all of Marie’s Politichicks commentary – “No Justification for Anti-Semitic Language” – click here.
As gun control activists claim that Americans own too many guns, what they don’t acknowledge is that the number of gun-related murders fell by more than half as the number of guns more than doubled:
Banning firearms and taking guns and ammunition off store shelves may have great virtue-signaling value, but they aren’t serious solutions to gun violence.
In an InsideSources commentary published by major media outlets including New York Newsday and the Adrian Daily Telegram, National Center President David A. Ridenour points out an uncomfortable truth for gun critics that is absent from most discussions: “Americans are generally more inclined to commit murder.”
Guns are obviously not the only thing used to commit murders. Knives, hammers and fists are also commonly used. And homicides without guns also occur in the United States in greater numbers than most other “high income” countries. David notes:
Contrary to the claims of the gun control lobby, the correlation between the number of firearms and gun homicides is weak and possibly negative.
But it’s not that America is like the violent chaos portrayed in “The Purge” movies. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 60 percent of gun-related murders are due to just three things: gang activity, substance abuse and mental illness.
If we’re to make meaningful progress in reducing gun homicides, we need to start addressing these underlying causes of violent behavior.
“It’s time to put American lives before politics,” he writes. “Serious solutions to gun violence” require “end[ing] the incessant debate over the number of firearms” that can be found across America.
To read all of David’s commentary — “Restricting Guns Won’t Solve Gun Violence” — at the Newsday website, click here.
Try as they might to tell the rest of us what to do, the greens can’t hide their hypocrisy. And the National Center is happy to help point that out.
Even though they claim the world is going to end in a dozen years unless average people radically change their own lives and unless the government imposes regulations that can stifle economic prosperity, the greens see no problem with jetting around the world themselves to climate confabs. Barack Obama is moving into beachfront property. Leonardo DiCaprio leased a mega-yacht.
And then there’s Al Gore. Thanks to a National Center report – “Al Gore’s Inconvenient Reality” by Senior Fellow Drew Johnson – the sage of climate change was recently named the biggest hypocrite of them all by both a sitting senator and former governor.
As an alternative to Global Climate Week, which the left observed by holding traffic jam-causing protests (that CAN’T be environmentally friendly!), U.S. Senator James Inhofe provided “a dose of reality” by giving out “Climate Hypocrite Awards” each day of that week.
But the top dishonor was reserved for Gore, whom Inhofe called “America’s greatest climate hypocrite.” The senator explained:
Whether it’s Gore’s chartered jets around the country or the fact his home uses up to 34 times more energy than the average American household, he’s never wavered in his calls for everyone else to, “…make [environmental] changes in their own lives.”
How did Inhofe get all this information on Gore? As the Washington Times reported:
Mr. Gore, who had no public comment on the jab, has been criticized for the energy demands of his 10,070-square-foot Nashville mansion, which in September 2016 burned through 34 times more electricity than the national monthly average, according to the National Center for Public Policy Research.
As Drew concluded in his report on Gore:
Al Gore has attained a near-mythical status for his frenzied efforts to propagandize global warming. At the same time, Gore has done little to prove his commitment to the cause in his own life. While Gore encourages people throughout the world to reduce their carbon footprint and make drastic changes to cut energy consumption, Gore’s own home electricity use has hypocritically increased to more than 21 times the national average this past year with no sign of slowing down.
Similarly, Scott Walker – the former governor of Wisconsin and president-elect of the Young America’s Foundation – wrote that “[t]he ‘climate change’ movement is full of hypocrites.”
In a Washington Times commentary, Walker brought up some of the same examples as the senator did with his awards. While other examples were largely described in bullet points, Walker spent paragraphs on the example of Gore’s home. And, to do so, he relied on the National Center’s report.
Around the time Mr. Gore won an Oscar for the best documentary feature, the Associated Press reported that Mr. Gore’s mansion in Nashville used more than 12 times the average amount of energy for a home in that area. That was his own inconvenient truth.
A decade later and Mr. Gore was still a hypocrite. He told Jake Tapper on CNN, “I live a carbon-free lifestyle, to the maximum extent possible.”
An analysis by the National Center for Public Policy Research at the time found that Mr. Gore’s mansion used more electricity in one month than the average family uses in 34 months. It noted that just the electricity used to heat the pool could power six homes for a year.
All of this after he installed new “green” updates. Ironically, the report says that Mr. Gore’s home used more electricity in 2016 than it did in 2007.
Mr. Gore claims to “live a carbon-free lifestyle, to the maximum extent possible,” really come from purchasing “carbon offsets” for the carbon dioxide related to the home. The report says that he pays $432 a month into a Green Power Switch program that helps fund renewable energy projects.
“Think about that,” Walker noted,” the next time you see a climate change protest on the news.”
Just seven days after Washington, D.C. raised the sales tax on sodas and other sugary drinks by two percent, legislation was introduced to repeal the tax. Unfortunately, it was not because the City Council was already having understandable second thoughts.
Not even close. The repeal is intended to make way for a new 1.5-cent per ounce excise tax on the same products. Councilmember Brianne K. Nadeau wants to tax distributors of sodas, sports drinks, iced coffee and other drinks so that they will pass on the cost to consumers through higher menu and shelf prices. Under this strategy, the sticker shock could lead to people choosing other beverages.
A two-liter bottle of regular cola could end up costing a dollar!
But the proposed tax – which is supposed to influence people to choose something other than the taxed products – is also supposed to fund childcare programs, health food giveaways and open space beautification.
So what is the Council’s true desired result: more money or healthier citizens?
National Center Vice President David W. Almasi, in an interview with WTTG-TV, called the soda tax a “cash grab” by politicians at the expense of the city residents least able to afford it.
This is a cash grab by the D.C. City Council on the backs of the poor in this city. It’s not going to change any behaviors, but it will raise money on the backs of the poor.
In other places where soda taxes have been hiked, it has been found that it’s those who typically consume in moderation who are the most likely to follow Nadeau’s plan. The occasional drinker shies away from the higher costs, while the “addict” shells out the extra cash. And the government ends up happy that these people are taking the financial hit and continuing to choose unhealthier options, because the government has already budgeted the tax revenue.
Especially with a city like Washington, there are many ways for a soda tax to fail. For example, the WTTG-TV studios are located in far Northwest DC – less than half a mile from a grocery store right across the border in Maryland, where there are no soda taxes. It’d be easy for Fitzgerald and his colleagues to stock studio refrigerators with cheaper products purchased in the “Free State.” While the excise tax is supposed to promote better nutrition, cross-border purchasing associated with the Philadelphia soda tax actually exacerbated the alleged “food desert” problem in one neighborhood as well as cost jobs when a supermarket was forced to close due to a soda tax-related decline in sales.
In its “Blueprint for a Better Deal for Black America,” the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network recommended a repeal of soda taxes. These regressive taxes were criticized for “hurt[ing] blacks disproportionately because they require the poor to pay a higher portion of their income on taxes” and “are less about promoting public health than about generating government revenue.”
The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project, in a Detroit News commentary, also exposed the meddling of the liberal Laura and John Arnold Foundation and its affiliated groups in promoting and protecting the Philadelphia soda tax.
The situation may be bleak for the nation’s capital. On the day the excise tax bill was filed, it already had the support of nine of the 13 members of the D.C. City Council. While the Home Rule Act that governs Washington allows Congress to override city legislation, it is unlikely that Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Chairman Elijah Cummings have any interest in vetoing a soda tax.
On the One America News Network, Project 21 member Jerome Hudson described how his new book – 50 Things They Don’t Want You to Know – allows for people to be “armed with the facts and armed with the truth” in a political environment where the media is not reporting everything people need to receive in order to have a balanced perspective.
As Jerome explained to OAN correspondent Stefan Kleinhenz:
What the media tells you and what they don’t report – politicians have been lying about – you take their word for it.
And, oftentimes, the truth is either hidden from you or they don’t tell you at all.
In 50 Things, Jerome reveals how almost all mass shootings occur in “gun-free zones,” how minorities were better represented in colleges and universities before affirmative action, how the minimum wage hurts job creation and how the United States has successfully reduced emissions in comparison to other countries without a carbon tax.
“The media won’t tell you this,” Jerome says.
Discussing why he wrote the book, he remarked to Kleinhenz:
What we see every day, unfortunately, is the media spinning up a web of lies. But webs have little holes in them.
What this book does is it gives people the facts and information to fill those gaps.
In my review of Jerome’s book, published by Breitbart, I wrote: “[A]s it gets closer to the holiday season, this book is something readers should also arm themselves with as they get ready for increasingly political Thanksgiving and Christmas family get-togethers.”
Speaking on OAN about how the book has the power to help change minds, Jerome added, “They’ll never look at these issues the same way.”
As Salesforce founder Marc Benioff claims his position as a corporate leader allows him “a huge platform to inspire people to do the right thing” by leveraging his company’s power, Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq., points out that Benioff risks squandering shareholders’ investments “to advance his cultural position.”
In an Associated Press article picked up by major media outlets including the Washington Post, New York Times, Houston Chronicle and San Francisco’s KNTV NBC affiliate (where Salesforce is headquartered), Justin is featured as the person standing in the CEO’s way as Benioff promotes a left-wing agenda for big business altruism in his new book, Trailblazer.
Benioff, who got rich developing and selling cloud-based software for businesses, is now advocating that “stakeholders” – usually a code word for left-wing activists – be prioritized on the same level as the shareholders to which Salesforce has a fiduciary responsibility. For example, Benioff used his position as Salesforce CEO to successfully campaign for Proposition C, a 2018 San Francisco ballot initiative that will cost his company over $10 million a year in payroll taxes to fund programs for the homeless.
Putting Benioff’s zeal in perspective, Justin notes:
He is using the economic power of Salesforce to advance his cultural position and advance his world view with impunity. If you are looking at it as an investor, he is literally giving away money to advance his social agenda.
To read the entire Associated Press article, click here.
Religious leaders preaching politics is nothing new, but it’s always best if that proselytizing is factual.
This week, I joined with millions of my fellow Jews in attending synagogue for Rosh Hashanah services. It’s one of the most religious days on the Jewish calendar. Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year, began a 10-day period of repentance and reflections. It ends with the holiest day, Yom Kippur – the Day of Atonement.
The content of this year’s Rosh Hashanah sermons has some of my friends talking. While rabbis at synagogues in the Conservative and Reform movements will insert modern issues into their sermons, many of them may not have been completely accurate in attempting to combine the old and the new.
One acquaintance described how the sermon at her synagogue became political grandstanding from the bimah – the raised platform in the synagogue where the Torah is read. She described how her rabbi chastised America in general and the Trump Administration in particular for the way he said immigrants are being treated.
Of course, most liberals – of which this rabbi was obviously one – never note a difference between immigrants who come to this country legally and through the proper channels and those who immediately break the law by sneaking into the country.
I am sure the rabbi spoke how “the stranger” is mentioned 36 times in the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) and detailed how we are supposed to act towards the stranger. I am sure the rabbi went on to say that we as Americans, and the Trump Administration, are going against G-d’s law. But are we?
In Hebrew, one word for stranger is “ger” (or “geiress”). That is the word used in the Torah 36 times to which many rabbis and other religious leaders are obviously referring. But there are stronger words for stranger in Hebrew. There is “zar,” which means alien, foreigner or outsider. There is also “nochri,” which means gentile, alien or foreigner.
Ger is also used to describe one who is converting to Judaism. I was once a ger. In fact, those who are less religious still refer to me as a ger. On the other hand, more religious circles state that once you are a Jew, your previous status no longer exists. It is as if you were always a Jew.
When I first started out on my road to conversion, I initially went to a Reform synagogue. The rabbi told me that when I was comfortable enough to pledge myself to the Jewish people, then I was ready to convert. At that point I had already spent over 15 years of my life immersed in Jewish culture and tradition. I could have pledged myself right then and there, but I knew I had more to learn. In my mind how could I be a Jew – let alone a good Jew – if I could not effectively speak or at least read Hebrew and know Jewish history?
Despite the sermonizing, I feel the ger/stranger mentioned 36 times in the Torah could be equated to immigrants – but only those who have come here legally.
Not only do immigrants defined in this way pledge themselves to this country, but they learn to read and speak our language, learn our history and accept the laws of our land as their own. Many go on to become citizens of the United States, and – like converts to Judaism – their previous status no longer matters since they are now Americans.
Like the many Jewish definitions of stranger, we cannot forget there are many types of immigrants trying to enter the United States these days. As people engage in public debate on the issue, particularly from places as important and influential as a bimah of a synagogue during the High Holidays, it’s important to understand and use the proper terms.
Making his point, Derryck asks: “What side condemns black conservatives when they speak out and express their own individuality?”
Pointing out a history of backlash against black folk who don’t toe the leftist line, Derryck noted that even civil rights icon Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was once the target of the left’s ire because he sought to form coalitions and utilize America’s founding principles in his quest for equality. Derryck says:
He was articulating Christian principles in combination with the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution. He was commonly lambasted by his critics as being a mouthpiece for the white man. These critiques came from the left.
Taking an example from the current political environment, Derryck notes how rapper Kayne West – who has controversially been thrust into policy debates – is being treated the same way by essentially the same people:
We may not agree with everything [West] says or does. However, the people who are criticizing from a racial standpoint are coming from the left – not the right.
Derryck’s video for Young America’s Foundation joins a prestigious series that also features the insights of conservative luminaries including Arthur Laffer, Ben Shapiro and Dinesh D’Souza.
While it is increasingly difficult to find straws in American restaurants due to pressure from environmental activists, 90 percent of the plastic waste polluting our planet comes from Asia and Africa. As the Trump Administration fights to build a border wall along our southern border, there are no complaints about bigotry or xenophobia for our subsidizing of border walls for countries such as Jordan and Israel. Almost every American mass shooting over the last 70 years happened in a “gun-free zone.”
These are just three of the secrets Jerome Hudson reveals in his eye-opening and highly readable new book, 50 Things They Don’t Want You to Know. Hudson is quite successful in achieving the goal that his book “blows up and disproves some of the political left’s most treasured beliefs.”
The entertainment editor for Breitbart News and a member of the Project 21 black leadership network, Hudson approached writing 50 Things to show others what he came to realize during his own political awakening – that the political establishment and celebrity elite are “weaponizing emotion at the expense of facts and data that don’t yield the politically correct conclusions they desire.”
“I swallowed whole their carefully crafted narratives without objection,” Hudson admitted. And it was through years of critical research, in which he found fault with things that both liberals and conservatives were saying, that he eventually found a home in the new media environment created by Andrew Breitbart and others.
Having successfully made the transition, Hudson now wants to share what he learned along the way.
One secret that Hudson busts open is about carbon emissions attributed to climate change. The Trump Administration was roundly criticized for pulling the United States out of the Paris climate accord, which National Center for Public Policy Research President David A. Ridenour said would cause a “wrenching transformation of our economy,” destroying millions of American jobs yet “accomplish next to nothing.” Despite the pullout, and without media fanfare, Hudson reported, America reduced its carbon emissions by a half-percent in 2017 – leading the rest of the world for the ninth time in the past 17 years.
This achievement occurred without adherence to the Paris accord or the need for federal regulation like the “cap-and-trade” scheme attempted in the Obama era. And, like the plastic problem, Hudson noted that governments that are still Paris accord signatories – and critical of the U.S. pullout – are grossly behind in meeting their goals. China, Iran and even the European Union logged increased carbon emissions as the United States posted its decline.
Hudson also targeted the “fact-checkers” employed by social media companies for their bias. And he showed how they are often wrong. He wrote about how Snopes, which was dismissed as a fact-checker for Facebook, he wrote, hired fact-checkers who previous worked for the left-wing Raw Story and “openly espoused their left-wing views.” Snopes once went as far as to debunk a Babylon Bee satire that joked that CNN for buying a washing machine “to spin news before publication.” Snopes may not have gotten the humor, but a “false” rating for the Babylon Bee at that time could have diminished its ability to market its work and make money from it.
To ensure such criticism cannot be leveled against him, Hudson’s 50 Things is packed with facts. Over 13 percent of the book is endnotes that cite government-compiled statistics as well as legacy media and new media reports. This is the kind of attribution you cannot find in mainstream media reporting, and one of the reasons for the success of the new media in which Hudson now works.
While sobering – and sometimes downright scary – Jerome Hudson’s 50 Things They Don’t Want You to Know is a fast-paced, informative read that people won’t want to put down. And, as it gets closer to the holiday season, this book is something readers should also arm themselves with as they get ready for increasingly political Thanksgiving and Christmas family get-togethers.
Now, more than 50 years after that right should have been secured, there is a very real threat that could dilute the votes of black Americans – and all Americans, for that matter.
Noncitizens are voting. They are being given the ability to weigh in on governing a nation in which they have no bona fide stake.
As Project 21 member Christopher Arps notes in a commentary published by The Hill newspaper, noncitizens are voting in Chicago, San Francisco, Montpelier and several places in Maryland. Some people are even calling for the expansion of noncitizen voting to include illegal and legal aliens.
Legislation has been introduced to allow noncitizens to vote in California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York and Texas. It’s being considered locally in cities such as Boston, New York City, Portland (Maine), Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.
Yet all of this should be moot. Noncitizen voting is wholly unconstitutional. Christopher, who was recently named president of the group Americans for Citizens Voting, notes there are several constitutional assurances regarding voting:
Voting is a fundamental right of citizenship, and four amendments to the Constitution protect this right, guaranteeing it to citizens of all races and genders…
The Constitution never extends this right to noncitizens.
And he explains what the Founding Fathers obviously knew:
By giving ballots to noncitizens, Americans lose the ability to determine the people and policies that will govern them, unknowingly handing over to others their right to self-determination.
Americans for Citizens Voting is trying to remedy the problem inherent in noncitizens obtaining ballots through educational efforts outlining the constitutional protections of the citizens’ vote as well as promoting legislation and ballot initiatives at the state level to protect the sanctity of citizen-only voting.
The Hill is a newspaper serving congressional lawmakers and their staffs on Capitol Hill. To read all of Chris’ commentary – “Protect Civil Rights With Citizen-Only Voting” – click here.