Featuring the Work and Ideas of the National Center for Public Policy Research & Project 21
The outcome of the presidential vote “defies common sense and logic,” Emery declares, adding:
It’s time to wake up and realize just what is at stake here. It’s time to ensure that we will continue to live and work for a better tomorrow for us, our children, and the world.
In a Politichicks commentary, Emery writes that the reported result of the election “does not reflect the current mood of the population.” He notes how “’glitches’ appear[ed] and flip[ped] the votes.” In other places, ballots “magically” appeared to help the perceived underdog. And the media “refuses to give fair coverage” and “ignore[s] those who disagree” with its declaration of a certain winner:
What have we come to in America? Have those who want to fundamentally transform America into Socialism lowered themselves to such a low degree that they will sacrifice the greatest nation on earth to achieve their selfish goals?
Emery contends that people “have been tricked, misled and played on,” noting:
It’s sad that those who have lived in freedom and liberty have been so easy to brainwash and have been led astray. What is it that Socialism has to offer that is so enticing? Is it the promise of a chicken in every pot, the free so called healthcare, reparations, open borders, or just the promises of a eutopia?
Whatever it may be, the American people need to wake-up and take another look at and taste of freedom and our Founding Principles. There is a world of prosperity at stake.
“Are we really willing to throw it all away,” Emery asks, “after we have witnessed such a great period of comeback for our nation over the last four years?”
But he also contends that people will not be fooled forever. He is pushing for further investigation of election processes to stop fraud. The first edition of Project 21’s “Blueprint for a Better Deal for Black America” recommended election reforms including requiring photo identification and citizenship for voting, cleaning up voter lists and more. A new edition of the Blueprint with further election reform recommendations is due out early in the new year.
To read all of Emery’s commentary – “What Have We Got to Lose?” – at the Politichicks website, click here.
Stacy, who previously hosted a weekend program and served as a frequent guest host, will now be heard Monday through Friday from 9:00pm until midnight Eastern Time. SiriusXM Patriot – a conservative talk-oriented format on the satellite radio service – is found on channel 125.
SiriusXM Vice President Dave Gorab said that Stacy’s weekend show “didn’t take long to take off with our audience.” He added:
In addition to her weekly program, Stacy played a vital role in SiriusXM Patriot’s campaign coverage and was a regular contributor to programs across the channel. The expansion to a daily show comes as well-deserved recognition for Stacy’s contributions, and we know our audience will be excited to hear Stacy on the Right five nights a week.
Amidst COVID-19 chaos and the presidential election, Project 21 member Donna Jackson notes that it “has been challenging for all Americans, but — for conservative Americans — it was doubly burdensome.”
As conservatives gather – in groups of any size they choose – for Thanksgiving celebrations, Donna believes that “there are many more reasons to be hopeful than discouraged.”
Despite the setbacks, Donna writes in a commentary syndicated by InsideSources that the “silver lining” in all of this is that conservatives have been “shaken from our complacency.” She adds:
[W]e all now realize the seriousness of the fight we are in. We are no longer willing to settle for minor victories or half-measures. We see our basic American freedoms under attack, and we want nothing less than a full restoration of liberty.
While a Biden victory in the Electoral College appears more likely as state election results are certified, Donna explains that – victorious or not – President Donald Trump has “unleashed something bigger than himself.”
This “MAGA Nation,” as she calls it, has both put conservatives on notice and brought about a “great blue-collar awakening” in which a “silent majority is no longer silent.” They are impressed and inspired by the president’s “willingness to take on all opponents” including the media, Hollywood, the woke radicals and the DC swamp creatures.
And this new coalition can succeed and grow because of a diversity that the left either can’t see or willfully ignores. Donna explains:
Never-Trumpers have labeled people like me “deplorables” (though we were not the ones rioting and looting); white supremacists (although I’m black); homophobes (although my best friend is gay); xenophobes (although my extended family members are from the Philippines and Mexico) and much more.
Save the angst for creating the perfect meal and don’t despair the political future. “Like a phoenix,” Donna predicts, “conservatives will rise from the ashes.” She points out that “we now understand this is the fight that needs to be fought by the many, not by the one…”
“And we can still win.”
To read Donna’s full commentary – “Still Plenty of Reasons for Conservatives to Be Thankful” – at the website of the Oklahoma City Oklahoman, click here.
InsideSources syndicates to almost 300 newspapers nationwide with a readership of over 25 million people.
Government intervention has led to an increased mortality rate.
That’s the key finding of a new study that National Center Senior Fellow Bonner Cohen Ph.D. profiles in an article published by the Heartland Daily News. Put simply, bureaucrats were not ready for the COVID-19 pandemic. And those states that have developed workarounds to these laws are now experiencing an increased mortality among sick residents.
Certificate of Need (CON) laws exist in 36 states and the District of Columbia. Because they give government bureaucrats the ability to control spending in certain health care institutions, Bonner notes that these laws “artificially restrict the expansion of medical facilities, equipment (including hospital beds) and services.” This power comes from a 1974 law – the “National Health Planning and Resources Development Act” – designed to ensure an equitable balance of resources and therefore improve access for the poor.
But the study, conducted by university economists for the research platform SSRN, found that “these laws were not designed to prepare for health care demand surges such as what we have seen with the recent pandemic.”
Bonner explains that the study – “Certificate-of-Need Laws and Healthcare Utilization During COVID-19 Pandemic” – found that “CON laws limit access to beds, respirators, ambulatory services, and CT/MRI imaging – resources crucial to the care of COVID and non-COVID patients,” and that it “sheds light on how scarce resources are distributed during a time of increased demand by patients” due to CON constraints.
In a further description of the study’s findings, Bonner writes:
The study found that when comparing states that have reformed their CON laws with states that have not, mortality in states with a high hospital or ICU bed utilization for non-COVID related illnesses was “substantial and significant.”…
Additionally, the researchers found that, in states with high ICU bed utilization that subsequently reformed their CON laws in order to increase acquisitions of medical equipment, 11 lives per 100,000 residents were saved weekly from COVID.
One of the researchers, Sriparna Ghosh of the University of Cincinnati Blue Ash, said that this study shows how “[i]nefficient and burdensome regulations are costing American lives.” By reforming or repealing CON laws altogether, “we can allow providers to stockpile crucial equipment they need for unexpected surges in demand for health care, minimizing additional lives lost through stressed markets and inefficient purchasing systems that require government permission to proceed.”
Click here to read all of Bonner’s article – “Certificate of Need Laws Kill People, Study Finds” – at the Heartland Institute’s Health Care News website.
Things are looking up in the fight against COVID-19. But you wouldn’t think so from the rhetoric coming from liberal politicians and their establishment media cheering section.
Throughout the pandemic, efforts to find a vaccine to bring the virus under control and to mitigate overall harm have been highly politicized. As National Center Senior Fellow Bonner Cohen, Ph.D., points out in a commentary for The Epoch Times, this is coming at a large, unnecessary and tragic human cost.
At the moment, and announced shortly after the presidential election, two vaccines exist that offer a high rate of effectiveness in treating COVID-19. And the vaccine that is made by Pfizer, Bonner notes, would “vindicate the Trump Administration’s ‘Operation Warp Speed,’ which mobilized the federal public-health bureaucracy to approve vaccines and other treatments in record time.”
But prior to the election, possible vice president-elect Kamala Harris and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo both made clear they were in the anti-vax camp if a vaccine came out of a Trump Administration. It’s a pathetic example of how liberals seem unwilling to let science escape the grip of politics. Bonner notes:
The prospect of a vaccine just around the corner comes at a time when the public discussion over how to deal with the pandemic has become politicized to the point that dissident opinions, however well-argued and supported by real-world data, are being attacked. Just as the moniker “climate deniers” is routinely hurled at scientists questioning the theory of human-caused global warming, those recommending therapies and other measures out of step with received opinion are met with a barrage of slings and arrows.
As an example, Bonner cites the Great Barrington Declaration. This document “recommend[s] concentrating efforts on the most vulnerable – the elderly with underlying conditions – while allowing others to lead more or less normal lives until, either through vaccines or other therapies, herd immunity is reached.” It has been signed by tens of thousands of scientists and medical practitioners worldwide.
The Great Barrington Declaration seeks to end the collateral damage of COVID-19 lockdowns while also reducing virus-related mortality “includ[ing] lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden.” Yet the document, Bonner writes, was “quickly met with derision in certain quarters” like the World Health Organization bureaucracy, the liberal establishment and the media elite.
Bonner explains that this opposition was based on false pretenses:
What these critics of the declaration have in common is portraying herd immunity as a costly strategy to suppress the virus when, in fact, it is the goal. Herd immunity, also known as “public Immunity,” denotes the point at which the rate of new infections is stable. The declaration’s authors are simply arguing that the measures taken to suppress COVID-19 have not only failed but have themselves undermined public health and destroyed livelihoods. As the authors put it: “Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.”
On an alarming note, this anti-science, pro-lockdown mindset may already have a foothold in the White House. Should Joe Biden be certified the winner of the election, the COVID-19 transition team he’s already selected contains at least two strong lockdown advocates. Dr. Michael Osterholm has called for a draconian lockdown to last four to six weeks. And Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, who previously suggested people over 75 should deny themselves lifesaving care, has pushed for a similar scenario in which businesses are closed and people remain at home.
To read all of Bonner’s Epoch Times commentary – “Suppressing Medical Debate Over COVID-19 Will Only Prolong the Disease” – click here.
When elected leaders like California Governor Gavin Newsom issue draconian restrictions that will effectively cancel traditional Thanksgiving plans for many families, it’s extremely hypocritical when he is found celebrating the birthday of a political crony at one of the most expensive and exclusive restaurants in the world.
Host Shannon Bream said that it is “hard for people to swallow” the prospect of no Thanksgiving or Christmas celebrations due to COVID-19 restrictions when there are many examples like Newsom’s out there.
Liberal PAC leader Ethan Bearman responded by claiming that there is “no leadership out of Washington” on the pandemic. He suggested that the Trump Administration has hindered the promotion of recommendations such as wearing masks, social distancing and the washing of hands, and by doing so forced the imposition of these lockdowns.
But Bream asked, “Who’s mocking and making fun of [preparedness] if [politicians] go out and do things that they’re telling us not to do?”
One instance of liberal politicians saying one thing and doing another is Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, who sought a lockdown of the Windy City after openly rallying for Joe Biden after the election because she said people “need to have relief.” Another is Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, who broke her own travel ban and quarantine rules, calling it “essential travel” to go to Biden’s victory party.
In rebutting Bearman, Horace explained:
If you’re going to make the kind of demands that we’re seeing,… you [need to] lead by example.
That’s far worse – this hypocrisy – than any undermining of the overall effort that we’re attributing this this administration.
And speaking of crowds, Horace gave his firsthand observations of both the size and the good behavior of the recent D.C. rally supporting President Trump, contrasting it with major liberal gatherings of the past:
I actually was in law school here in Washington, D.C. when the [Louis Farrakhan] Million Man March came to town. This was bigger.
When you look at what happened during the inauguration week during 2016 – with the people wearing the pink hats – this was multiple times bigger.
The thing about it is – like you have seen in some other settings like when the Tea Party held some of their marches – the places looked better when they left than when they arrived. You don’t see a mess. And, most importantly, you didn’t see fires. You don’t see looting. And it wasn’t until dark that these elements that have been terrorizing our cities all summer showed up and began to act out.
This is quite telling.
With regard to behavior, Seattle talk radio host Jason Rantz added that he was “not shocked” when Bream showed video of Antifa/Black Lives Matter militants throwing lit fireworks into the outdoor seating area of a D.C. restaurant in an effort to harass Trump supporters after the rally.
As part of the press tour promoting his latest memoir, former President Barack Obama sat down with “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley to talk about – among other things – America’s alleged systemic racism.
After Obama called American history a “legacy of discrimination and Jim Crow and segregation that we’re all responsible for,” Project 21 Co-Chairman Stacy Washington deemed his declaration “disappointing.”
In the interview, Obama said that “we can all do better on this front than we’ve been doing.”
Responding to this on the Newsmax program “Wake Up America,” Stacy simply asked host Rob Schmitt:
First of all, how can you – Rob – or me – Stacy – do better in stopping criminals from having improper interactions with the police?
Stacy noted that there are often perfectly justifiable explanations for police-involved shootings that are being overlooked by Black Lives Matter activists and their media enablers:
Look, there have been a couple of unauthorized or unjustified police-involved shootings. But, for the most part, we’re talking about individuals who were interacting with the police because they have committed a crime or are suspected of committing a crime. And then, after that, things go wrong when they fail to follow police orders.
So how are you – Rob – and me – Stacy – responsible for that?
How indeed. Stacy also pointed out that Obama is talking down to the American people when he heaps racial guilt on them when, as she previously explained, actual responsibility for perceived offenses is tenuous:
Every time [Obama] comes back to peddle a new thing he’s selling, [remember] he’s in the most elite part of America…
This is not you and me talking. This is an elite individual lecturing us about what we can do to make things better for criminals. I’m not accepting it.
Another thing that came up in the “60 Minutes” segment was that this almost might not have been. Obama almost didn’t run. That would have been preferable to Stacy:
Every time he comes out, I’m more disappointed.
I wish he’d followed Michelle’s advice. She told him not to run.
Think of how great America would be if he had taken that advice!
He wasn’t always this way. He grew into it. Just like the kids he wants off his property now will follow his lead and similarly want their lawns clear of future generations.
But what is really bugging Scott is that this common evolution of personal priorities and preferences seems to be lost on today’s corporate leaders. Their desire to placate the woke generation, he warns, could pose dire consequences to the American economy and future opportunity and prosperity.
In a Townhall commentary, Scott calls out CEOs for succumbing to the will of “agitators” within the company rank-and-file who “don’t give a hoot about corporate profits” and who will “send their customers stomping” away as they hector management into helping them pursue their “woke” agendas. Scott says the assumption that millennials are “irreparably woke” and will never change is just plain dumb; if history is any judge, this is hardly ever the case:
Only a moron in a hurry could swallow this argument for even a moment. Who has not heard the old saw, usually ascribed to Winston Churchill (but that he may have adapted from Disraeli), that “any man under thirty who is not a liberal has no heart, and any man over thirty who is not a conservative has no brains?”
But we need not look back so far. The evidence is all around us.
The hippies of the Age of Aquarius, most of whom are still amongst us, transformed by 1982 into the yuppies of the Reagan Renaissance. Fourteen years of living with the consequences of their own youthful beliefs – the civil decay and economic deterioration that resulted from the ever-encroaching statism of the late ‘60s and ‘70s – ended that generation’s naïve fancies of youth and left them supporting smaller government, less regulation and more liberty.
The case will be the same again.
Yet the “performative wokeness [that] hamstrings corporations” is currently on full display. Citing the worlds of entertainment and professional sports “because the wokeness in these industries has been so obvious,” Scott notes the disastrous ratings declines for the Emmys, the NBA and the NFL. These ratings injuries are self-inflicted by misguided leaders who embrace political messages because they feel they must in order to cater to the youth and their workforce.
“It would be folly of the firing sort,” Scott writes, “to make long-term corporate decisions on the presumption that this generation will be the first never to shift across the political spectrum as it ages and learns.”
Before jumping feet-first into a sea of uncertainty by catering to the environmental, social and governance (ESG) agenda of the left, Scott suggests that CEOs remember instances of their own misspent youth:
Remember, corporations: the millennials are only beginning their earning and spending power, because they’re only beginning their careers.
By the time the massive wealth transfer the ESGers keep touting has occurred, the scales will have fallen from their eyes. And they, like their elders today, will have little time for companies that let themselves be discommoded by the underinformed radical poses of youth.
And stay off Scott’s lawn!
To read all of Scott’s commentary – “Woke Companies, Stop Pandering to Millennials’ Socialism Phase” – at the Townhall website, click here.
American colleges and universities have been raking in billions from foreign governments such as China, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. But they haven’t been reporting these donations like they are required to do by law.
Now that Trump Administration Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has shown an interest in finding out just how much foreign influence may be affecting American higher learning, institutions that were once lax in their methods are now rushing to comply and disclose their international benefactors.
As the U.S. Department of Education investigates a dozen elite universities for previously-unmentioned links to other governments, Project 21 member Derryck Green welcomed the newfound transparency – seeing it as a warning about how much academia may be beholden to potentially hostile foreign powers.
In an interview for American Family Radio’s OneNewsNow, Derryck told correspondent Bob Kellogg:
These foreign countries are able to pay off, in essence, top-tier universities. We have to question what our students are learning while they’re there and what they’re taking out into the world once they graduate.
Reporting on the findings, DeVos said: “We found pervasive noncompliance by higher ed institutions and significant foreign entanglement with America’s colleges and universities.” And the majority of these funds went to the most prestigious schools.
Under the terms of the Higher Education Act, administrators must report all foreign donations of over $250,000 received from foreign governments. Findings so far show schools have taken in a total of $19.6 billion in foreign donations and contracts – including $3.1 billion from Qatar, $1.5 billion from China and $1.1 billion from Saudi Arabia.
Investigators from the Department of Education found the donations – oftentimes listed in school records as having been made anonymously – “extremely troubling.” Criticizing the irregularities, Derryck added:
I also think that some of these colleges that have deliberately underreported and deliberately not reported the amount that they receive be fined in a way that they cannot accept for a certain amount of years federal money for student loans.
To read the entire OneNewsNow article, click here.
While the United States formally left the Paris Agreement on climate change on November 4, a victory for Joe Biden’s presidential campaign would lead to a quick reversal. This is just what the Chinese government wants. And it would be getting this victory on the cheap.
Abiding by the demands of the agreement has wasted taxpayers’ money and threatened the nation’s gains in energy independence. In a report published by the Capital Research Center (CRC), National Center Senior Fellow Bonner Cohen, Ph.D., notes that there are many pitfalls with Biden’s commitment to obligate Americans to the agreement yet again:
Like the Soviets before them, Chinese communists seek to use international agreements and treaties as a conduit for constraining American military and economic power. The Paris Climate Agreement heavily restricts U.S. energy development, which is what Beijing wants. This has both national security and economic implications.
The CRC report alleges that American environmental groups have assisted the Chinese government in pushing the Paris Climate Agreement – with the Chinese seeking American compliance as a means of gaining a strategic advantage. During the Obama Administration (where Biden served as vice president), groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) are said to have worked with the State Department to find ways to enforce the treaty even though treaties require the “advice and consent” of two-thirds of the U.S. Senate in order to be officially enacted.
NRDC’s opposition to America’s fossil-fuel development aligns with China’s goal of crippling its primary global rival. The Paris Agreement constrains American energy development, which is exactly what the NRDC and Beijing want.
To read Kevin Mooney’s entire article about China, the United States and the Paris Agreement, click here.