VIDEO: An interesting discussion on the founding of the NRA and the reason for it. Listen carefully to the historic references and then ask yourself if they are true – go find out.
Murray and the White House insist that every business should be compelled by law to protect its employees’ “right” to “contraception” that is “free.”
I put all three words in quotation marks because these are deeply contentious claims. For starters, the right to free birth control – or health care generally – is not one you’ll find in the Constitution. And even if you think it should be a right, that is hardly a settled issue in American life.
The right to own a gun is a far more settled issue constitutionally, politically and legally in this country, but not even the National Rifle Association would dream to argue that we have a right to free guns, provided by our employers.<<<Read More>>>
New York, Los Angeles, Chicago Move to Restrict Devices that Help Smokers Quit
New York, NY – On the same day the Los Angeles City Council moved to regulate e-cigarettes, the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Jeff Stier testified at a New York City Council Health Committee hearing on a similar measure being rushed through the New York City Council.
In his testimony, the New York-based Stier, who heads the National Center’s Risk Analysis Division, encouraged council members to think twice about whether it is in fact “prudent” to extend New York City’s ban on smoking in public places to include e-cigarettes:
“I would caution you that this is not the prudent thing to do. The prudent thing to do here is to help cigarette smokers quit. Rushing to judgment here could have serious, unintended consequences that you need to be aware of. It will stop people from quitting smoking. E-cigarettes are not a gateway to smoking. The data does not show that. E-cigarettes are a gateway to quitting smoking.”
E-cigarettes, which do not produce smoke, have been a boon to those who have tried to quit smoking but have failed.
“Nicotine,” Stier explains, “is addictive, but not particularly harmful, especially at the levels consumed by smokers or users of e-cigarettes, who are called ‘vapers’ for the vapor, rather than smoke, emitted by e-cigarettes.”
“Nicotine’s bad reputation should be attributed to its most common delivery device, cigarettes,” says Stier. “Nicotine itself is about as dangerous as the caffeine in soda. Along the same lines, while too much soda can cause weight gain, nobody seriously suggests that caffeine causes obesity. Similarly, e-cigarettes provide the nicotine and the habitual activity of smoking, without the danger of burning tobacco.”
“Mayor Bloomberg and his nanny state allies in New York City and Los Angeles have steam coming out of their ears about e-cigarettes. Here is a product created by private-sector innovation that is doing what many hundreds of millions of dollars of government spending, costly litigation, addictive excise taxes, warning labels and punitive regulation have been unable to do: help cigarette smokers quit happily. ”
“Regulators understand that in order to maintain not only their huge budgets, but their basis for authority to control both private-sector businesses as well as personal decisions, they must demonize, delegitimize, and defeat e-cigarettes every step of the way,” Stier says.
“Some, without any basis in science, allege that e-cigarettes are a ‘gateway’ to smoking. But initial studies, as well as empirical evidence, show that e-cigarettes are a major gateway away from, not toward, smoking. For all the heated rhetoric, there’s little dispute in the scientific community: those who quit smoking cigarettes and switch to e-cigarettes reap immediate as well as long-term health benefits. And those improvements are dramatic.”
Stier concludes: “Regulations that treat e-cigarettes the same as their deadly predecessor will have the unintended consequence of keeping smokers smoking. Quitting nicotine use altogether is the best choice. But for those who chose not to, or find it too difficult, e-cigarettes are a potentially life-saving alternative.”
Outgoing New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, nicknamed “Nanny Bloomberg” by many for his use of government tools to influence what private citizens eat and drink, supports the New York proposal. Bloomberg’s administration imposed New York City’s ban on public smoking in 2003.
Like Los Angeles and New York, Chicago is considering banning the use of smokeless e-cigarettes anywhere in the city tobacco smoking is banned. The proposed ban is supported by Mayor Rahm Emanuel. The sale of e-cigarettes to minors is already appropriately illegal under Illinois state law.
The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.
Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.
VIDEO: I suppose the NFL has the right, as a private entity, to set the standards for what they will allow to air as advertisements during events like the Super Bowl. What we should be looking at here is whether or not the NFL is consistent in their denial of ads and the reasons for them. By law, the NFL cannot discriminate against one company or companies of the same kind. Is that what’s going on here? Leave your thoughts and comments below in the comments section.
Perusing the Drudge headlines, one has to at least wonder where we, as a nation and people, are headed. Here’s a list of some of the headlines that show the effects of Americans’ loss of rights and/or freedoms due to laws, regulation and tyranny.
1. Labor Relations Board Oks Unions Paying People To Protest WALMART…
2. UPDATE: New tax law driving expats to renounce U.S. citizenship…
3. CITY LIMITS TOWN SQUARE HOLIDAY DISPLAYS TO 14 DAYS…
4. NYC Moving to 20 MPH Limit on City Streets…
5. NJ proposes banning eating, smoking while driving…
6. Beijing Destroys Barbecue Grills to Cut Pollution…
7. Scientists testing chemicals that can delete memories…
8. Militarized police forces raise concerns…
9. Researchers unveil drones with face detection cameras…
10. Shopping malls ramp up security…
It is not do-gooderism when do-gooders force you to accept their plan for your future.
The power to force others to do good is the same power to force others to do bad.
Federal Agency Guesses Race of People Based Only on Names and Drivers’ License Photos, Then Uses these Guesses as the Basis for a Lawsuit Alleging Racial Bias
Project 21 Joins in Amicus Brief by the Pacific Legal Foundation Alleging the Government’s Use of Racial Stereotypes is Unconstitutional and Demeaning
Washington, DC – A legal brief written by the Pacific Legal Foundation and filed October 15 on behalf of itself, the Project 21 black leadership network and others criticizes the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for improperly using racial stereotypes as the foundation for a lawsuit against a business alleging disparate impact on minorities.
In the case of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kaplan Higher Education Corporation, et. al., the government is suing an employer for instituting a credit screening process meant to flag applicants for certain sensitive positions who may have something in their background that might compromise their integrity on the job. The practice began in part to remain in compliance with U.S. Department of Education guidelines after Kaplan managers were made aware of financial improprieties on the part of some staff members involved in administering student aid.
While the EEOC employs a similar screening process for its own applicants, the agency nonetheless alleges in its lawsuit that Kaplan’s methods create a disparate impact for black applicants. To try to prove this, the government employed “race raters” who used Department of Motor Vehicles-supplied photographs of Kaplan applicants. These “race raters” were then asked to determine from the names and photographs if an applicant was “African-American,” “Asian,” “Hispanic,” White” or “other,” and their opinions were used as if they were facts as the basis of a government lawsuit.
“Kaplan, the defendant in this case, was attempting to follow previously established government guidelines in order to prevent any potential fraud or abuse of taxpayer and student funds,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Cherylyn Harley LeBon, a former senior counsel with the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. “Instead, the government intervened with an unsubstantiated claim and an unscientific methodology in order to support its claim of racial bias among black applicants. Let’s hope justice and common sense will prevail.”
“Engaging in the legal equivalent of ‘heads you lose and tails I win,’ the EEOC has attempted to implement an untenable new requirement on employers by this unnecessary expansion of disparate impact racial analysis,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper, a former constitutional law professor and former congressional leadership staff member. “Telling employers who haven’t asked or in any way inquired about the racial status of applicants that they cannot adopt simple preventative measures to ensure potential employees won’t engage in wrongdoing is unfair. Using government contractors to scour applications to guess the race of various applicants in order to show such disparate impact is just plain bizarre.”
EEOC v. Kaplan was dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and has been appealed by the EEOC to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Project 21′s amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief to the 6th Circuit was written by the Pacific Legal Foundation and is joined by the Cato Institute, Center for Equal Opportunity and Competitive Enterprise Institute. Arguments have not yet been scheduled.
In the brief, the EEOC’s methodology is criticized because “race-based distinctions are among the most dangerous and destructive actions government can take.” Furthermore, improper processes “offend basic principles of equal protection,” and the “use of race raters relies on stereotypes, and demeans its subjects.”
Noting that the process was unreliable, unscientific and that “[n]ot one of the race raters had experience identifying individuals’ race merely by looking at them,” Project 21′s brief points out:
[The EEOC's] use of race raters directly contradicts its own directives. When the government refuses to rely on self-identification, it must resort to using so-called racial identifiers, and thus stereotypes and sweeping assumptions. By opting not to ask the individuals to identify themselves, EEOC unilaterally made itself the definer and decider of race. It is impossible to define race in such a simplistic way, stamp an individual with a racial classification and simultaneously treat them with dignity…
Equality before the law means that government will not categorize people based on unscientific, stereotypical criteria, and it allows each person to define himself or herself, and thrive as an individual.
Reflecting on the purpose of Section VII of the Civil Rights Act to prohibiting disparate treatment rather than impact, the brief concludes about the EEOC’s lawsuit:
Racial imbalance cannot justify racial preferences, let alone warrant racial quotas. Because government is prohibited from implementing quotas, it is also prohibited from enacting policies that force employers to do the same.
Project 21′s Cooper added: “This case was already thrown out of court once and it shouldn’t be given new life by the Court of Appeals.”
In 2012-13, Project 21 has been involved in the race preferences cases of Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action and Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin and the voting rights case of Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder that were argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2013, besides EEOC v. Kaplan, Project 21 will also be involved in the re-hearing of the Fisher case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. Project 21 legal experts and other members have discussed these cases and others in media interviews this year on MSNBC, Fox News Channel, HBO, Glenn Beck’s Blaze TV, the nationally-syndicated Jim Bohannon radio show, Florida Public Radio, the Christian Science Monitor and Reuters.
So far in 2013, Project 21 members, representing Project 21, have generated almost 1,500 known media interviews, op-ed commentaries and citations.
Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives for over two decades, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative, free-market, non-profit think-tank established in 1982. Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated .
We know there are efforts nationwide to ban lead in ammunition as was seen recently in California, where Gov. Brown signed legislation banning lead. We know making ammo out of other materials is more expensive in addition to just the making of lousy ammo. Environmentalists say lead ruins the environment but is that really what’s behind screwing with ammunition?
And now, it appears brass is making a “resurgence” in home decor, jewelry, electronics and some say even electrical appliances.
How popular must brass become before there is a shortage and/or the price goes so high it seriously effects the price of ammunition, thus making it impossible for many to purchase it?
The anti-gun, people hating, troglodytes will stop at nothing to rid this country of guns. The bozo in the White House, the latest “tool” to trump up gun fears, will also stop at nothing to disarm Americans. Those are his orders. No tyrannical dictator, whether Obama or the next thug puppet to bless us in the White House, can assume full power until this act is accomplished. This can be accomplished discretely and somewhat covertly, as is happening now, or by full frontal assault complete with death and destruction.
The banning of lead is an environmental movement, on the surface, but isn’t the bigger picture about the eventual destruction of Second Amendment and personal rights? Those controlling the so-called environmental movement couldn’t give a lead balloon for what lead ammo is or is not doing to the environment. It is safe to conclude that California, the model for what the ruling elite wants the rest of the country to be, is just one small indicator that the attack is on ammunition, i.e. disarming the citizenry.
So, what about brass? We learned shortly after Obama took office in the White House, he attempted to stop the sale of spent military brass (ammunition casings) to private ammo manufacturing companies. Such a move would have been very detrimental to the supply of bullets in this country. If you think it is difficult now to buy ammo, imagine what it would be without brass. And, bear in mind that to my knowledge nothing has changed in the manufacturing capabilities in this country since this blatant attempt to destroy ammo production. In other words, a more complacent citizenry, preoccupied with other things, like Obamacare and fake government shutdowns, wouldn’t even be aware of a simple stroke of the pen, i.e. Executive Order equaling no more brass casings.
One might conclude from all this that perhaps there is something a bit more sinister behind creating demand for brass, resulting in higher demand and possibly lower supplies, driving the cost of brass up and thus the price of retail ammunition. After all, is it all that difficult to sway the public into going ga ga (and yes I might be referring to Lady GaGa) over material things? A concerted effort, like we have seen with the Beatles, electronic gadgets, drugs, fashion and design, financed by the ruling elite, could effectively make ammo difficult to purchase or worse.
If I didn’t know any better, I might conclude that hyping brass could be a targeted effort by the Tavistock Institute on Human Relations.
Here it comes America. Still thinking some of us are nuts and insist on burying your head in the sand because truth hurts?
We have officially become more than a police state, I believe, and proof of that comes from an expulsion from school of a seventh grade boy because he was seen on his parents’ property, waiting for the bus, and shooting a toy air pistol. He didn’t bring the toy gun on the bus nor to school and yet the Virginia Beach City Public School System kicked him out of school anyway.