Photo from fOTOGLIF

Shareholders Urged to Challenge CEO Bob Iger at Disney’s Annual Meeting

Washington, D.C.: On occasion of the Disney annual shareholder meeting today, the Free Enterprise Project is warning Disney shareholders that CEO Robert Iger’s progressive political bias puts investors at risk.

The Free Enterprise Project is a program of the National Center for Public Policy Research, a Disney shareholder.

“Iger’s rejection of several offers to sell the distribution rights of the ABC-TV docudrama The Path to 9/11 is a sign that his personal political views are affecting business decisions,” said Free Enterprise Project director Dr. Tom Borelli, who has raised the issue personally with Iger at past shareholder meetings. “In addition, Disney’s close ties to progressive Democrats, including President Obama, may have resulted in ABC News’ special access to cover the president’s health care policy in a day-long media blitz last year.”

“Iger’s policy decisions are putting Disney in the cross-hairs of millions of Americans who are rejecting the progressive assault on liberty. By rebuffing offers to sell the distribution rights of The Path to 9/11, Iger is simultaneously silencing speech while denying shareholders an opportunity to profit from the company’s investment,” Borelli added. “Playing progressive politics is a dangerous game for a company such as Disney that relies on a squeaky clean brand for its revenue.”

The political motivation behind Iger’s decision to bury the docudrama remains a topic of discussion years after its broadcast. Some assert that Iger’s motivation to not let the award winning miniseries see the light of day is driven by his desire to protect the legacy of President Clinton regarding terrorism.

Andrew Breitbart’s Big Hollywood recently reported on the issues surrounding Iger’s controversial verdict.

Last June, ABC News was given special access to the White House to cover President Obama’s health care initiative. ABC’s “Good Morning America” was broadcasted from the White House lawn, “World News,” its nightly news show from the Blue Room, and a special prime time “Questions for the President: Prescription for America,” from the East Room.

“A monopoly given to ABC for news coverage raises serious concerns of media independence. The perception that the White House is choosing ABC over other news organizations because of favorable coverage has the potential to damage the credibility of Disney’s news division,” said Borelli.

The proximity between Iger and his team with progressives only adds concerns about media independence. Not only is Iger a generous supporter of progressive politicians (about ninety percent of his donations go to Democrats and liberal PACs), but Disney board member Monica C. Lozano, CEO of La Opinion, a major Spanish-language newspaper in the U.S., is a member of Obama’s economic recovery board.

“The close alliance between Disney and the Obama Administration can be a risk to shareholders. What happens to Disney if Tea Party members and other liberty-minded activists turn on the company because of concerns that Iger is using the company to advance the goals of the progressive movement?,” asks Borelli.

“‘I’m not going to Disney World’ could become the battle cry for American patriots.”

Given these risks, shareholders attending Disney’s annual meeting should ask Iger:

With millions of Americans outraged over the progressive attack on liberty, are you concerned your refusal to sell “The Path to 9/11,” and your personal support of the progressive agenda will cause a conservative backlash against Disney’s brands?

The shareholder meeting is on March 10, 2010 at the JW Marriott San Antonio Hill Country, San Antonio, Texas.

I received an email this morning from someone on the “left” attempting to support his ideas of predator/prey relationships with his science. All was going well until the “left” in him just couldn’t resist adding that last paragraph showing his true colors. It’s quite funny and I share that with you here.

The model for most of these bills came from Montana’s Firearms Freedom Act, a bill that basically states that any gun or gun accessory manufactured in Montana that is purchased and remains in Montana, cannot be regulated by the Federal Government of the United States. Montana is seeking “Declaratory Judgment” before suggesting that anyone proceed with the manufacturing of guns and accessories.

In reality what these Firearms Freedom Acts are doing is “nullifying” the authority of the Federal Government to regulate guns within the borders of each state when none of the guns or related products ever leave the state. The Federal Government has been very successful in the past in regulating all guns through the “Commerce Clause” of the Constitution. Montana’s bone of contention is that the Commerce Clause has regulated interstate commerce and has no authority over intrastate commerce.

One might ask if this is a full blown act of nullification. It’s not that Montana and other states are saying that any or a specific federal law is being declared unconstitutional in it’s entirety. In this case any law that the Federal Government thinks gives them authority to regulate intrastate gun manufacturing, is being challenged.

Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association and one of the sponsors of the MFFA, says this is a states’ rights issue.

This is a states’ rights effort, using firearms as the object of the exercise. The MFFA exempts Montana-made and retained firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition from federal power, saying that if these items do not cross state lines, they are strictly INTRAstate commerce, not INTERstate commerce, and not subject to federal authority.

Although nullification isn’t a term that is widely used these days, there are other examples of modern day nullification or challenges to certain federal laws. Two that come to mind are the REAL ID Act and marijuana laws. Some states have passed legislation challenging the constitutionality of forcing citizens to have to carry an identification card they believe infringes on their right to privacy and the Constitution. And, some states have passed their own laws authorizing marijuana for medical use where the Federal Government bans all uses and possession of the drug.

We may also be staring down the barrel of nullification depending on what happens with President Obama’s proposed National Health Care plan. If it is mandated that every American citizen have health insurance, many have asked where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have that kind of authority.

Probably the most recent case that expanded the power of the Federal Government to regulate commerce, came in 1942 in the Wickard v. Filburn case. This came at a time when President Roosevelt demanded the power to institute his programs he thought where going to get us on the road to recovery after the Depression. Scary isn’t it.

One of the more notable accounts of nullification was in 1832 in South Carolina. South Carolina’s “Ordinance of Nullification” declared the Tariff of 1828 and Tariff of 1832 unconstitutional. This put President Andrew Jackson in quite the predicament. While Jackson quietly assembled his army, ready to invade South Carolina, negotiations continued. Jackson’s fear was that if South Carolina were to be allowed nullification, many of the southern states would follow suit. Also many of the New England states apposed the tariffs. Jackson feared that secession would follow the nullification and this would lead to the demise of the Union. He also feared that an invasion of South Carolina could just as easily lead to civil war.

Other than President Jackson’s fear of the trouble in South Carolina, his bigger deterrent was coming from the fact that several other states, although never officially declaring nullification, were poised to do so.

Perhaps it is telling that so many states are seeking some form of nullification, some dealing with REAL ID, others medical marijuana and 25 states or more, opting to use gun rights as their tools to seek out a return of more state sovereignty, as is granted us in the Tenth Amendment. What does it tell us that so many states chose gun rights as their tool? And what does it tell us about the people’s attitudes toward the expansion of government.

Where will this go? First we should wait to see what the Court rules in the Montana Firearms Freedom Act case and watch to see how many other states pass and get signed their “nullification” bills. Soon, then, we can declare, “Balls in your court!

Tom Remington

As much as I admired Ronald Reagan and consider him to be one of our finest presidents, I would not advocate having his face put on any paper money denomination. If we feel it necessary to change up the faces, then I might suggest we head in the opposite direction from putting more recent dignitaries on bills to those of past history.

Being that history really isn’t taught any longer in our schools, this might be an opportunity to place some of our other founding fathers – Jefferson, Madison, Adams, etc.. We do have pictures of men who were not presidents – Hamilton ($10.00) and Franklin ($100.00).

Or maybe we could remove all pictures and begin a series of placing the Bill of Rights beginning with the First Amendment.

Photo from fOTOGLIF

Washington, DC: Mychal Massie, chairman of the Project 21 black leadership network, is condemning President Barack Obama’s decision to urge Senate leaders to employ controversial reconciliation rules to force a government takeover of health care.

“The people have spoken, and they have said no to Obama’s radical brand of health care reform,” said Project 21’s Massie. “Putting his seal of approval on usurping regular Senate procedure showcases not just an extraordinary arrogance and a willingness to abuse legislative power, but it also unambiguously indicates his contempt and disregard for the will of the American people.”

In an address from the White House today, Obama expressed a willingness to work with Republicans to pass health care reform. But Obama also suggested that the Senate leadership might instead employ reconciliation rules to limit debate and lower the vote threshold normally needed to pass legislation in that chamber. This would allow the plan’s more unpopular provisions to be enacted.

“During the judicial battles of the Bush years, when there was talk of the employing the ‘nuclear option’ to overcome filibusters, there was great respect among liberals for Senate the procedure of cloture,” noted Massie. “Ultimately, conservative legislators agreed with them and the option was never used. Now, with the shoe on the other foot, liberals are quick to do the very thing that once horrified them. They are refusing to hear the pleas from their colleagues and the American people to scrap their plan and start over.”

Massie continued: “The question to be answered is why are these senators willing to risk their careers and Obama his legacy to force such a miserable piece of legislation? Trying to obfuscate and confuse the use of reconciliation to pass a fundamental overhaul of such a substantial portion of the American economy is dishonest on a level likely never before imagined in the history of the legislative branch. Misrepresenting it as cost-cutting is morally opprobrious and fraudulent. But this is apparently not out of character for those determined to make a free citizenry dependent upon government from cradle to the grave.”

In a February 25 Wall Street Journal commentary, former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) called the use of reconciliation to pass Obamacare “a total affront to the legislative process.” He noted that the process had previously been used only for incremental budget issues or those with wide bipartisan support.

Photo from fOTOGLIF

District of Columbia v. Heller ruled that citizens have a right to have a gun in their homes to protect themselves. The ruling made it clear that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual the right to keep and bear arms. What didn’t get decided in Heller was what, if any, restrictions on those guaranteed rights were allowable. It appears McDonald will not tell us that either.

There is no clear cut established “gun right”. It is not defined. The only thing that has shaped gun rights or gun restrictions, has been state and local laws through our jurisprudence. As we have seen, some of those restrictions have gone so far as to deny certain citizens the right to possess a gun at all, as was the case in Heller, in the District of Columbia and McDonald, in Chicago.

If SCOTUS should rule to force Chicago to abide by the Second Amendment through the “Due Process Clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment, then the question becomes, how much? Will the court offer any ruling as to where Chicago should begin?

In oral arguments, former Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, representing the NRA, suggested that there should be a “carry over” of Second Amendment laws along with the Fourteenth Amendment incorporation.

Personally, I believe the Court will react much the same way it did in Heller. They will make a ruling of whether Second Amendment rights extend to the states and then leave it up to the courts to hammer out what will then become “reasonable” restrictions on guns.

After Heller, even though the High Court ruled that a ban on gun ownership was unconstitutional, the District of Columbia did not make it easy for anyone to get a gun and register it. I foresee the same events in McDonald.

Tom Remington

Photo from fOTOGLIF

Even though Phil Jones, the professor at the center of the controversy, admits that he refused to release data requested through FOIA, he claims he wasn’t required to by law because the information being requested was already available through other public resources. But the real puzzling admission from Jones is what he said about sharing his research.

He admitted withholding data about global temperatures but said the information was publicly available from American websites.

And he claimed it was not ’standard practice’ to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research.

‘I don’t think there is anything in those emails that really supports any view that I, or the CRU, have been trying to pervert the peer review process in any way,’ he said.

What makes the scientific community tick and maintain credibility is sharing of information and the peer review process. If it is “standard practice” to withhold data, then is peer review worth the price of a grain of salt? It would seem not, thus relegating much of scientific research invalid.

One scientific research center, the Institute of Physics, says:

Unless the disclosed emails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research and for the credibility of the scientific method.

‘The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital.’

Whether one is a believer or a doubter of man-made global warming, this admission by Jones and what the emails have exposed should be extremely troublesome. A domino effect seems to be happening as well with admissions of errors and shoddy work coming from other individuals and organizations closely related to the CRU. We now must wait until the investigation runs its course in order to assess the entire damage done.

From this point forward, with what we have now learned, it is a ridiculous notion to think much stock would be placed on the so-called, “Settled Science” of climate change.

Tom Remington

Washington, D.C.: Arguments by backers of President Obama’s health care proposals that the U.S. Congress has the constitutional authority to mandate that individual Americans purchase health insurance through the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which permits the federal income tax, are incorrect.

So concludes a new “What Conservatives Think” publication, “Is a Health Insurance “Individual Mandate” Constitutional?” written by policy analyst Matt Patterson of the National Center For Public Policy Research.

Among the findings:

* Both the House and Senate versions of ObamaCare contain penalty taxes on Americans who do not have government-approved health insurance, the so-called “individual mandate.”

* Such a tax would function as a direct, or capitation, tax, as opposed to a tax on activity, such as excise or income taxes, and would therefore fall outside Congress’ authority to tax income granted by the 16th Amendment to the Constitution.

* The Constitution places strict restrictions on Congress’ power to lay capitation taxes under But Article I, Sec. 9, which reads “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

* Exemptions for some people built into the Senate bill’s individual mandate tax would make it impossible for ObamaCare to meet this strict constitutional standard.

Says Patterson, “Some of the finest legal minds in the country have concluded that the enforcement provisions of ObamaCare’s individual mandate would violate the both spirit and the letter of the U.S. Constitution. Apparently, President Obama and members of Congress think they are smarter than these scholars – and smarter than the authors of the Constitution.”

“Is a Health Insurance “Individual Mandate” Constitutional?” is available online at http://www.nationalcenter.org/WCT.html.

Photo from fOTOGLIF

“I understand that it’s their award and the NAACP can give it to whomever they want,” said Project 21’s Massie. “But an Image Award is supposed to be reserved for ‘outstanding achievement.’ Can they really justify Jones’ failed tenure in government and his continued wrong-headed views for such an honor? At this rate, I expect next year’s ceremony will honor Lil’ Wayne.”

Jones, a one-time self-avowed communist who was appointed the Obama Administration’s “green jobs” czar, left the White House in a storm of controversy in September 2009 after his radical beliefs (including past support of 9/11 conspiracy theories) and his vulgar comments about political opponents were reported in the media.

In a commentary justifying giving Jones an Image Award that posted on CNN.com, NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous called Jones “an American treasure” who is “the most misunderstood man in America.”

Massie replied: “Contrary to what Jealous asserts, the real story pursuant to Van Jones is that not even the Obama White House could support his radicalism. They threw him under the bus late on a Saturday night.”

Jealous also wrote that Jones is “America’s champion for green jobs” and “Van is working to make sure that our country does not lose out to India, China or Germany in the green industrial race.”

“In this time of economic uncertainty, throwing our lot in with pipe dreams such as green jobs and cap-and-trade are suicide for the American worker,” noted Massie. “An analysis of Spain’s very aggressive green jobs program by Professor Gabriel Calzada of Madrid’s Juan Carlos University found that each green job created there came with a $774,000 price tag, destroyed 2.2 regular jobs in the process and still had only a ten percent chance of actually becoming permanent. The cap-and-trade emissions regulations the White House is still pursuing is estimated to destroy millions of jobs annually and dramatically reduce national and individual earnings. And this would be done unilaterally, guaranteeing America could not compete with India and China. Quite simply, the Jones agenda is economic suicide. This I understand.”

Brushing off Jones’ previous radicalism, Jealous justified the award by saying Americans “ultimately judge people on what they are doing today for tomorrow, not for what they did yesterday.” He cited the forgiveness of the late reformed segregationist Alabama governor George Wallace (D) and Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) for “having defended racist organizations.”

Massie responded: “Did Jealous forget that Byrd didn’t just defend racists but was a member and recruiter for the KKK? I also didn’t remember such forgiving attitudes toward Trent Lott, Don Imus and or conservative nominees to the Supreme Court in recent memory. This is all about the NAACP hitching its wagon to the political fringe and trying to make the best of what they must know in their hearts is a very bad thing.”

“There are black doctors, lawyers and captains of industry who are better suited to be held up as the best of black America,” said Project 21’s Massie. “Giving an Image Award to Van Jones is a disservice to the NAACP and to America.”

The NAACP Image Awards will be presented live on the Fox television network on February 26.

In 2004, Project 21 objected to the nomination of R. Kelly in the category of “outstanding album” at a time when he was facing charges of child pornography. The controversy led the NAACP to considering a morals clause for future nominees. Jones’ award is a special one separate from the entertainment-related process related to Kelly’s nomination.