Featuring the Work and Ideas of the National
Center for Public Policy Research & Project 21


Featuring the Work and Ideas of the National Center for Public Policy Research & Project 21

Netflix and Learn: Honoring Black Entrepreneurship

Netflix and Learn: Honoring Black Entrepreneurship

Coronavirus binge-watching doesn’t need to be exclusively “The Mandalorian,” “Game of Thrones” or “Tiger King.”

I was excited to watch “Self Made,” a four-part miniseries on Netflix about the real-life rise of Sarah Breedlove from dirt-poor washerwoman to America’s first self-made female millionaire.

Adopting the name Madam C.J. Walker, Breedlove built a business empire creating and selling haircare products to other black women in the early 20th century. She created an industry that not only catered to an underserved demographic, but also enhanced opportunities for black women in workplace roles previously unavailable to them.

Outside of a postage stamp in 1998, Walker’s compelling story has largely gone overlooked. This is a shame. Even Netflix’s premiere missed the extra notoriety it might have gotten during Black History Month. I think her story is so inspiring that I pushed long ago for her portrait to be featured on our currency.

Late in the Obama presidency, then-Treasury Secretary Jack Lew announced that abolitionist Harriett Tubman would replace President Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill by 2020. But that process is delayed due to anti-counterfeiting concerns related to the design of the new bill.

With no disrespect intended toward Tubman – the icon of the Underground Railroad – I backed Walker in a 2015 New Visions Commentary published by Project 21:

Since it’s money, how about having the first woman immortalized on paper currency be the first female self-made millionaire in American history?

Madam C.J. Walker is that woman, and her inspiring story makes her an ideal candidate.

Before Tubman was designated as the new face of the $20 bill, there were plenty of political/feminist suggestions for the honor. Walker didn’t even make the list! I was particularly critical of the efforts of the group Women on 20s, which was engaged in lobbying the White House:

This group, however, doesn’t just want any woman. They want a woman of their own choosing. They will send President Barack Obama the specific woman they think should grace a future $20 bill. Civil rights icon Rosa Parks, abolitionist Harriet Tubman and former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt were selected through an online vote from their 15 top choices. A fourth, Wilma Mankiller, the first female elected as a Native American tribal leader, was added “by popular demand” and as an obvious statement about the harsh Native American policies during the Jackson presidency.

All of these candidates share the distinction of being feminist icons, well-known historical figures or both. If this must be done at all, why not make a bold choice — one that’s free of a political agenda?

I explained how Walker earned the honor: by meeting and surpassing many of the same expectations faced by the more politicized suggestions.

Walker persevered in a male-dominated era where separate-but-equal Jim Crow discrimination was the law of the land. She saw how other businesses ignored black customers, and she stepped in to fill the void and became a success.

At the same time, she created jobs and new wealth in the black American community. She founded institutions that educated tens of thousands of “Walker Agents” and built factories to make her products. In 1914, Walker told the National Negro Business League: “I am not merely satisfied in making money for myself, for I am endeavoring to provide employment for hundreds of women of my race.”

Netflix’s series is “inspired by” Walker’s life. There are obviously conversations that were dreamed up by screenwriters and events that never happened. While the series is based on a biography written by Walker’s great-granddaughter, there are also Hollywood additions to the story that are disputed by the author, such as a potential lesbian relationship involving historical characters.

Nonetheless, “Self Made” is an inspiring story that is indeed binge-worthy. And, for older children, it’s a great history lesson that they likely wouldn’t hear if classes were in session.

To read my entire 2015 commentary, click here.

Giving Google Credit, But Not a Pass

Giving Google Credit, But Not a Pass

Elected leaders come and go, but bureaucracy sticks around forever. Therein lies the inherent problem with government.

While the Trump Administration is doing its best to bring about commonsense regulatory and legal reforms, a lot of what are known as “deep state” shenanigans are often overlooked.

So it heartens us to be able to praise the likes of Google and other companies that have stood up and fought back. In a commentary, I write that we admire these companies for their “efforts to drain the D.C. swamp.”

Despite many of these same companies being among those who have rightfully earned the criticism of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project (FEP) in the past – and who will most likely earn it again in the future – we are happy to give them credit in this case for doing something right.

In this case, it’s Google, Oracle and others who are standing up to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) and its “practice of filing race and gender discrimination lawsuits” against them and other high tech corporations:

The National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project (FEP), the nation’s leading activism arm for conservative shareholders, regularly takes Google and its parent company, Alphabet, to task for trampling intellectual property rights, promoting liberal groupthink in Silicon Valley and even fighting our efforts to protect conservative employees from retribution related to their political beliefs.

Yet Google and other companies have our support in one area, as they fight lawsuits brought against them by an agency of the U.S. Department of Labor that is suing companies over discrimination claims that are rooted solely in statistical bean-counting.

Overall, we feel Google would best serve its investors, customers and employees by being politically neutral and focusing on quality products and services instead of public policy. Likewise, we believe the federal government best helps the marketplace and taxpayers when the bureaucracy isn’t abusing its powers to pursue a woke agenda.

The federal lawsuits against these companies started in the final days of the Obama Administration, but they have festered during the Trump presidency. Challenging the OFCCP’s allegations is brave because this agency has the power to blackball companies from being able to maintain and bid for new federal contracts.

“While some challenged companies have thrown in the towel,” I point out, “Oracle and Google are fighting back. Good for them, and for that they deserve our support.”

I add:

Not only is this all an injustice, but it’s a waste of taxpayer money. The federal government’s witch hunt is compelling these businesses to spend millions of dollars to defend themselves against what appear to be flimsy charges against them.

This is why it’s important for the people in charge of the Labor Department, most notably Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia, to step in and rein in the OFCCP’s radical crusade.

But our support is earned. We will still be seeing Google and other companies who do not properly respect the free-market fundamentals that have helped make them great as this year’s shareholder season ramps up:

Kudos to companies like Google for fighting back against the OFCCP. We will still criticize Google when it fails to protect ideological diversity in its workplaces, but taking this stand against D.C.’s swamp creatures is admirable.

To read all of this commentary – “Google Finally Does Something Right” – at the website of, click here. describes itself as “a news source for individuals, news organizations and broadcasters who put a higher premium on balance than spin and seek news that’s ignored or under-reported as a result of media bias by omission.”

Saving Black Jobs From Coronavirus Chaos

Saving Black Jobs From Coronavirus Chaos

The outbreak of the coronavirus has thrown the economy into turmoil. It is also making unprecedented demands on the nation’s infrastructure.

This crisis is of particular importance and peril to black Americans, who have recently benefited from new job prospects and increased opportunities for wealth-creation and social mobility. These gains are now at risk of being ripped away while the nation hunkers down.

But regulatory reform may help these things bounce back. The National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network is optimistic about one aspect of that reform in particular.

As part of his economic and regulatory agenda, President Donald Trump announced a proposed rule to streamline the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) at the beginning of the year. Untouched for over 40 years, NEPA oversees major construction and land use projects. It can greatly delay beneficial projects that bring jobs and opportunity to businesses and workers alike.

Council Nedd

In a commentary published by Issues and Insights, Project 21 Co-Chairman Council Nedd II states:

Commonsense NEPA reform, with a mindful balance of environmental protection and economic growth, is key to a more productive America that helps all of its citizens.

In explaining the inherent problems with the current application of NEPA, Council adds:

NEPA unnecessarily impedes the growth and improvement of our economy and infrastructure. Furthermore, it keeps Americans who want to work from being able to find good jobs that will provide them and their families with income, opportunity and advancement…

All too often, and at the nation’s peril, environmental regulation like NEPA remains protected from necessary scrutiny. An unwillingness by special interests and the media to embrace review and reform comes at a cost for the economic well-being of American businesses, investors and workers – specifically disadvantaged black Americans seeking jobs in construction, service and related industries.

While not diluting or changing environmental laws, NEPA reform is designed to offer “a faster process” that allows for input and oversight by the government that won’t “deter investment” or make America “less economically competitive,” according to Mary Neumayr, the chairman of the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality.

Project 21 submitted a public comment supporting NEPA reform, citing recent gains in black employment as one reason to support the increased options for building and service jobs. The comment also suggested a “minority impact analysis” be added that could further promote black job opportunities:

Regulatory reform has increased job prospects. A Project 21 analysis of federal jobs data noted that the black unemployment rate has reached a record low six times during this administration. It is our hope for this trend to continue.

And, in its “Blueprint for a Better Deal for Black America,” Project 21 advocates for adopting a “minority impact assessment” to examine potential positive and negative effects of proposed federal regulations on jobs, wages, homeownership and consumer prices for minorities in comparison to the general population. Its goal is to encourage reflection before pernicious regulation is enacted. This would be a welcome addition to the proposed NEPA reform.

The comment also compared health care-related construction projects here and in China to show that the impact of NEPA here could be a matter of life and death.

Issues and Insights is a website created by the former editorial page staff of Investor’s Business Daily. It is described – by that staff – as “unapologetically free market and for limited government.”

To read the full text of Council’s commentary – “Regulatory Reform Benefits Black America” – click here.

Props for the President on COVID-19 Response

Props for the President on COVID-19 Response

In this time of worldwide crisis, what’s the best thing President Donald Trump can do to help find a cure to the coronavirus, heal the sick, rebuild the economy and reassure a nervous nation?

How about “resign immediately”? That’s the silly suggestion of Robert Weissman, the president of the left-wing group Public Citizen. He writes that in a pro-con set of commentaries for InsideSources that also features Project 21 Co-Chairman Stacy Washington writing in support of President Trump’s advances in the containment of the coronavirus in the face of adversity.

“President Trump is making the most of the resources available to him in both the public and private sectors to the benefit of all Americans,” Stacy remarks, “and I for one am grateful for that.”

While Weissman looks for fault in presidential statements and complains about things such as border closings, Stacy notes that President Trump was presented with a full-blown problem. The Chinese government withheld vital information that could have made containment and the search for a cure much easier. As Stacy explains:

[T]he virus was allowed to spread unchecked for nearly two months, before the tightly controlled communist Chinese government would go on to share information with the World Health Organization.

This allowed it to spread unchecked for far longer than it should have. And while Weissman suggests the president didn’t get serious quickly enough, Stacy points out that quick action from the White House was likely the reason a real disaster was averted:

With the first case of novel coronavirus identified in Washington state on January 30, President Donald Trump took action, suspending all travel from China the next day. This action was met with howls of racism and xenophobia, but can now be credited with preventing the rapid spread of the virus from person-to-person by travelers.

Italy took no such measures and, just two short months later, experienced an outbreak that has overwhelmed their medical system and killed thousands of its citizens…

All of this was done before COVID-19 had severe effects on Americans. Contrast this with President Barack Obama waiting nine months into the H1N1 pandemic when 60.8 million Americans were infected and 12,469 people had already died before declaring an emergency.

Weissman complains that the Trump Administration “inexplicably has failed to deliver vitally needed coronavirus tests to health care providers.” The president did take the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to task for not being ready with a plan for rapid testing, and he did respond by acting to make it that “All Red Tape has been cut, ready to go!”

Stacy adds:

But bureaucracy never moves fast, and the CDC opted to create its own test kits instead of accepting those offered by South Korea. The administration enlisted the assistance of private-sector stakeholders to advise on best practices and worked to change Federal Drug Administration rules to permit state labs, university and private hospitals to perform their own testing.

And allegations that a key office for dealing with just this sort of pandemic situation had been disbanded are flat-out false, Stacy says:

It turns out the office still exists, is fully staffed and was not subject to any actions by Trump officials. This attack was obviously politically motivated.

To read all of Stacy’s commentary – “Trump Administration’s Reaction to Coronavirus has been Good for America” – in its entirety, click here. The commentary has appeared in newspapers including the Finger Lakes TimesBryan Eagle and St. Joseph News-Press.

InsideSources syndicates to almost 300 newspapers nationwide with a readership of over 25 million people.

Worried About COVID-19? Did You Get a Flu Shot?

Worried About COVID-19? Did You Get a Flu Shot?

With Americans going into lockdown to prevent the spread of coronavirus, they are looking to the government for a solution. In a new commentary, I ask people to first ask themselves if they did their part by maintaining their post-9/11 emergency “go bag” or by getting a flu shot last fall.

As a society, how we prepare for everything from minor inconveniences to major crises is a good indicator of how well we are going to weather the potentially long and anguished quarantine that has been recommended to help slow the spread of the virus.

And, when it comes to looking at the readiness of the Trump Administration, I suggest that the White House’s regulatory agenda has likely aided the fight against COVID-19 – the deadly strain of the coronavirus.

While the coronavirus is not the flu, the history of what happened during the last pandemic – which was a flu – can show us how much we’ve learned (or not). I write:

Flu shots are a good indicator of our collective preparedness. Twice a year, the world’s top viral experts gather to select the three or four strains that shots will combat in coming months. In 2009, H1N1/swine flu – our last pandemic – was not identified until after shots were made. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that flu during that pandemic caused over 61 million infections and 12,469 deaths.

But even if H1N1 had been included in the shot, only 41.2% of Americans over six months old got a shot for the 2009-2010 flu season. To improve access, state governments later eased regulations so pharmacists could give flu shots. That’s why you can get flu shots everywhere these days.

Despite this easier access and promotional campaigns, only 40 percent to 60 percent of Americans are estimated to have gotten shots for the current flu season.

I remember the years when you had to go to a doctor’s office or scour the newspaper for ads to find the few times when nurses would give shots at grocery stores. Regulatory reform has made it so much easier to get a flu shot. But this past year, despite the relative convenience of flu shots today, the percentage of people who prepared for flu season might have been as low as before the H1N1 pandemic.

Yet now there are people rushing out to get their flu shots! And, even though it’s not a way to stop COVID-19, less cases of the flu would be helpful in terms of allocation of resources.

This is an obvious instance where a large portion of the public has failed in doing its part to help minimize sickness and reduce risk. I present a way for people to redeem themselves right now:

Practice social distancing and self-isolation. Battle through cabin fever and the urge to put yourself potentially in infectious situations like mass gatherings. And be neighborly. If you’re hoarding, spare a roll of toilet paper for the unfortunate in your community. The more conscious we are about preventing the spread of the virus, the faster it can be contained.

This is your opportunity to make up for your neglected go bag or lack of a flu shot.

As for the Trump Administration, even though regulatory reform is vehemently opposed by critics of this presidency, the Commander in Chief seems to have created an environment that has allowed for a much smoother federal response to COVID-19:

[R]egulatory reform is something to rally around. Last year, the Trump Administration enacted new rules to reduce paperwork and increase speed and efficiency. New emergency waivers allow hospitals to increase workloads without running afoul of Medicare and Medicaid rules. Restrictions on telehealth options will be lifted. As Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health said, opportunities increase when we “remove the constraints” to fighting the virus.

Another example is a long-deserved reform proposal for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that impacts major construction and land use decisions. Proposed NEPA changes will streamline approval processes. I cite an example of a lightning-fast Chinese hospital construction project to combat COVID-19 compared with a smaller Connecticut hospital a few years ago that took over four years to build. While the American hospital is undoubtedly supremely better quality, the current regulatory regime would make the Chinese model completely unworkable here.

While NEPA reform was not initiated in response to the coronavirus outbreak, and will likely not have an impact on current virus-fighting efforts, it will set the stage for quicker reactions in the future.

No one was prepared for COVID-19, and the cover-up, media sensationalism and politicization of the crisis is making things worse. Given the hand he was dealt, President Trump is effectively working with the business and scientific communities as well as foreign leaders to get us through this as quickly and safely as possible.  We can’t expect anything more than that right now.

My commentary was written for InsideSources, which syndicates to almost 300 newspapers nationwide with a readership of over 25 million people. The commentary has appeared in newspapers including the Orlando Sentinel and Waco Tribune.

To read the commentary in its entirety, click here.

Biblical Wisdom for Coping With COVID-19

Biblical Wisdom for Coping With COVID-19

Council Nedd

Project 21 Co-Chairman Council Nedd II was booked on Pastor Greg Young’s syndicated “Chosen Generation” radio show to discuss the black leadership network’s public comments supporting reform of the National Environmental Policy Act. But the conversation could not avoid discussion about the effects of the coronavirus.

During the discussion, Council – the rector of St. Alban’s Anglican Church in State College, Pennsylvania – cited some biblical advice for living in the “new normal” of the pandemic.

Council cited chapter 22 of the Book of Matthew, in which Jesus provides two commands:

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

“We don’t want our neighbors to infect us,” Council said, “so we should not do anything careless to infect our neighbors.”

To listen to Council’s full interview with Pastor Greg, click here.

Demanding Answers on China and COVID-19

Demanding Answers on China and COVID-19

Pointing out that “[t]he world needs to know the details behind the spread of this deadly virus so everyone understands exactly how this was started,” the National Center for Public Policy Research joined dozens of conservative groups in signing a letter that asked President Donald Trump to launch a formal investigation to uncover and fully document the origins and responsibility for the COVID-19 pandemic that has thrown the planet into crisis.

The letter, signed by National Center General Counsel Justin Danhof, Esq., specifically cited efforts by the Chinese government to “blame the United States for the spread of the Wuhan Coronavirus.” It added that “the media are creating panic and blaming your administration” for the spread of the virus.

The letter further stated:

China’s outright and extreme politicization of this horrible disease is outrageous, unacceptable, and dangerous. That politicization has already spread panic across the world. The Chinese-led hysteria has roiled markets, and disrupted everyday life for millions of Americans and citizens of other countries around the world.

In addition to the National Center and the Media Research Center – which led the effort – other conservative groups represented on the letter included FreedomWorks, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, the Council for National Policy and Young America’s Foundation.

To follow is the full letter sent to President Trump:

Dear Mr. President,

We represent virtually the entirety of the conservative movement but we believe we speak for hundreds of millions in the country and around the world when we ask you to officially investigate the deadly Coronavirus. The world needs to know the details behind the spread of this deadly virus so everyone understands exactly how this was started. The world deserves to know who was responsible so future pandemics of this nature can be prevented.

As we are sure you are aware, the Chinese government has done everything in its power to blame the United States for the spread of the Wuhan Coronavirus. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian placed the responsibility on the United States: “When did patient zero begin in US? How many people are infected? What are the names of the hospitals? It might be US army who brought the epidemic to Wuhan. Be transparent! Make public your data! US owe us an explanation!”

A few days later, Lin Songtian, China’s ambassador to South Africa, said: “Although the epidemic first broke out in China, it did not necessarily mean that the virus is originated from China, let alone ‘made in China.'”

These statements are astonishing – but predictable… It’s impossible for us to know the true origin of this virus in China because China has refused to share information. As Senator Tom Cotton has correctly pointed out, there are several possible scenarios about the origin of the Wuhan Coronavirus. We do know that Chinese secrecy and lies have made the crisis far worse.

China’s outright and extreme politicization of this horrible disease is outrageous, unacceptable, and dangerous. That politicization has already spread panic across the world. The Chinese-led hysteria has roiled markets, and disrupted everyday life for millions of Americans and citizens of other countries around the world.

As your National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien rightly pointed out, “Unfortunately, rather than using best practices, this outbreak in Wuhan was covered up,’ There’s lots of open-source reporting from China, from Chinese nationals, that the doctors involved were either silenced or put in isolation, or that sort of thing, so that the word of this virus could not get out. It probably cost the world community two months.’”

And consider the well-known case of Dr. Li Wenliang, the young Chinese doctor who bravely shared his concerns on December 31, 2019, with a group of colleagues about an unidentified virus with SARS-like symptoms that his patients were exhibiting. As a result of his due diligence, Chinese authorities accused him of spreading “false information” and that he had “gravely disturbed [the] social order.”

None of this is being reported as it ought to be in American media. Instead, the media are creating panic and blaming your administration. All of this could have been prevented if the Chinese government had merely exercised its responsibility in containing this disease and sharing more information sooner.

We therefore respectfully request you consider launching a more formal investigation to uncover the truth. The first step in making sure this never happens again is finding out what happened in the first place.

Starbucks Rejects Protecting Conservative Employees

Starbucks Rejects Protecting Conservative Employees

There is no official protection for a Starbucks “partner” who is subjected to ridicule, scorn or other mistreatment due to political beliefs. And an attempt by the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project (FEP) to correct this problem was opposed and defeated by the company’s leadership.

Starbucks is one of the most woke companies in the world. It prides itself on “a diverse and inclusive environment” that seeks diversity “in its broadest sense,” according to Rachel Gonzalez, the coffee chain’s executive vice president and general counsel. Yet she labeled FEP’s proposal, which was presented at this week’s 2020 annual shareholder meeting, “unnecessary” and “not beneficial.”

Say what?

In his presentation, FEP Director Justin Danhof, Esq., explained:

We… made a very simple request – we asked that you extend [your Equal Opportunity Employment Policy] to include protections against viewpoint discrimination. That’s because, all across corporate America, the political left is engaged in a fierce cancel culture that seeks to root out conservatives.

The current Starbucks policy governing operations in the United States reads: “All partners and applicants will be treated fairly, without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, physical or mental disability, sexual orientation, marital status, military or veteran status, gender identity and expression, genetic information, or any other factor protected by law.” Note, however, that there is no explicit protection for employees of any political or religious viewpoint from workplace discrimination. In this era of cancel culture, such a protection is proving to be an unfortunate necessity.

Essentially, those who work for Starbucks are protected from workplace discrimination if they identify with a gender different from their genetic code, but any coworkers who disagree with this identification have no similar protection.

A policy for preserving and protecting diversity is particularly relevant at a company such as Starbucks, which has a reputation for being overtly liberal in its corporate affairs. As Justin pointed out in his presentation:

Starbucks has also refused requests to increase the viewpoint diversity of its board. This signals to employees that viewpoint discrimination is condoned if not encouraged.

It’s also not good for business. From holiday cups to engaging customers on racial issues,  the politics of Starbucks has always left conservatives with a bitter aftertaste. Justin explained this clear and present danger to investors and the Starbucks leadership:

When I met with Starbucks executives regarding our proposal, I relayed concerns that many conservatives and religious-minded Americans had with the company over the span of many years. I noted that in light of the company’s radical left-wing stances on the environment, immigration, and social justice issues, many conservatives avoid consuming Starbucks. Further, many conservative and religious Americans would never consider working for Starbucks. This means that the company’s left-wing policy stances are limiting Starbucks’s potential workforce.

Our proposal offers Starbucks a means to alleviate that concern. By signaling to conservatives that the company makes employment decisions free from viewpoint biases, Starbucks would increase the number of Americans willing both to buy Starbucks products and consider working for the company.

But the Starbucks leadership dug in its heels. Gonzalez, speaking in opposition to FEP’s proposal, talked past these concerns and the constructive means of fixing them. She responded:

Consistent with Starbucks’s mission and values, we celebrate diversity – and we’re committed to creating an inclusive environment for our partners and our customers.

Given our ongoing effort to support a welcoming environment at Starbucks, our board of directors believes a public report detailing potential risks associated with omitting viewpoint diversity from our written employment opportunity policy is unnecessary and not beneficial to our shareholders.

In making the case for Starbucks to maintain a potentially hostile environment for employees with differing viewpoints – even if they don’t voice them in the workplace – Gonzalez pointed to the “To Be Welcoming” program of the Starbucks Global Academy. But a perusal of its “course” on “Welcoming Dialogue on Political Culture Bias” found no explicit directives for employees taking the course to respect the views of fellow partners. In fact, at least one of the videos was inciteful in the way it portrayed the expansion of voting rights over the history of the United States. It’s curious how diversity and inclusiveness would be enhanced by a prominent lesson about the gerrymandering of voting districts.

FEP’s proposal was not adopted. Starbucks employees who hold viewpoints that might be at odds from the rest of the woke workforce remain at risk of employment discrimination. So Starbucks cannot be the truly diverse and inclusive environment its corporate leaders claim it to be. And that is by their own design.

“America’s Constable” Elected Law Enforcement Leader

“America’s Constable” Elected Law Enforcement Leader

At the National Center, Council Nedd II – one of the co-chairmen of the Project 21 black leadership network – is referred to as “America’s Constable.”

He’s a busy guy. In addition to his work helping lead Project 21, Council is also an Anglican bishop, the rector of St. Alban’s Anglican Church in State College, Pennsylvania and an author.

And, since January of 2016, Council has served as a Pennsylvania State Constable.

In his New Visions commentary “I’m a Cop at Heart,” Council – who is the son and brother of Washington, D.C. police officers – wrote, “I cannot deny a constant and irresistible pull toward [law enforcement] throughout my life.”

He added:

As a constable, each day is starkly different. When I knock on a door to serve a warrant and make an arrest, I have no idea what’s on the other side. Someone you anticipate being difficult can often be surprisingly docile. Other times, you may let down your guard only to find you have a runner or a fighter on your hands.

In the aftermath of shootings in places of worship, Council became notable for having a gun on his hip while leading church services. In his constable role, he has helped protect places of worship that have been threatened with violence.

Council’s hard work and dedication to his vocation of upholding the law have now been rewarded.

He was recently elected the vice president of the National Constables and Marshals Association (NCMA). In that role, he will help advance the NCMA’s goals of “a strong, united, and professional approach” among elected and appointed constables and marshals and strengthening their relationships with other members of the law enforcement community.

He was elected at the NCMA’s annual training conference in New Orleans. He will serve with Constable James Brawner of Brazoria County, Texas, who was elected president. Brawner (pictured at right with Council) said: “Constable Nedd brings a unique skillset to the association which will aid in the education of constables across the nation.”

Lambert Boissiere, the constable of New Orleans and chairman of NCMA, said: “It is of great importance to have someone like Council Nedd as vice president [of NCMA] to help expand training opportunities for marshals and constables and to grow membership to our organization.”

Saying he is “excited to serve,” Council said:

This organization has been blessed with great leadership since its founding almost 50 years ago.

Beginning immediately, I will be intricately involved in increasing the association’s presence in Washington, D.C. and preparing a rapid response to any state where constables and marshals have issues that need to be addressed.

Abortion Reform Helps Black Communities

Abortion Reform Helps Black Communities

A generation ago, the liberal mantra about abortion was that it should be “safe, legal and rare.”
These days, safe and rare have largely been cast aside.

Women are now encouraged to ”shout your abortion.”  Additionally, there is pushback against state laws requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals – to be prepared in case something goes wrong that puts the life of the mother at risk.

Commenting on the latter in an interview with Alison Keyes for the CBS News program “Weekend Roundup,” Project 21 member Marie Fischer asked the very simple question:

If you’re going to be pro-choice, at least wouldn’t you want a highly qualified doctor doing this procedure on you?

Project 21 participated in the case of June Medical Services LLC v. Russo that was recently argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. The National Center’s black leadership network joined a legal brief with other pro-life black groups that asked the justices to uphold the lower court ruling in favor of Louisiana’s Act 620. This law requires “that every physician who performs or induces an abortion shall ‘have active admitting privileges at a hospital that is located not further than thirty miles from the location at which the abortion is performed or induced.’”

In the interview, Marie explained why this is an issue of particular interest to black Americans – citing how they are disproportionately affected by abortion policies:

When you look at the numbers… the biggest demographic that gets abortions are black women. I mean, you look at the example of the state where [this case] came from was the state of Louisiana, where the black population is 32%. But the number of black women getting abortions is 61.2%. So this affects black women more than any demographic.

And this disproportionate impact appears to be by design:

You see a lot of Planned Parenthoods put in black or lower-income neighborhoods. So they make it easier access – which has unfortunately led to a large number of black babies being aborted.

In pointing out that “Louisiana’s clinics have a history of serious health and safety violations,” the Project 21 brief detailed cases of complicated and risky abortions in which hospital admitting privileges would have been helpful, remarking that “[t]hese gruesome deaths are part of a long history involving unqualified and uncredentialed abortion providers disproportionately harming black women.”

Responding to those who oppose Act 620, Marie said:

People keep saying abortion is like a [medical] procedure, but it is an invasive surgery. If done wrong, not only could it sterilize the mother but it could kill.

So all we’re asking – we’re just agreeing that, yes, you must have admitting privileges [at a hospital].

Countering the complaint that laws like this could close clinics by placing the burden of obtaining admitting privileges on abortionists, Marie asked:

Will it really leave a dearth of places? Are you saying that many practitioners are truly unqualified? And, if that’s the case, that’s a problem.


Founded by Amy Ridenour

Our Authors

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a communications and research foundation supportive of a strong national defense and dedicated to providing free market solutions to today’s public policy problems. We believe that the principles of a free market, individual liberty and personal responsibility provide the greatest hope for meeting the challenges facing America in the 21st century.