These remarks from the Project 21 membership come after Obama made much of the his administration’s feeble efforts to encourage domestic production while continuing to embrace his risky alternative energy agenda during a White House press conference today.

“Obama should surrender in his war on fossil fuels,” said Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli. “The losers in his war are the American people, who are paying more and watching good jobs move abroad. Obama could simultaneously boost employment and add to our domestic energy potential by allowing drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.”

Calling the recent spike in oil prices “not a new phenomenon,” Obama said Americans need to realize the “hard truth” that this trend will continue. While saying he was committed to boosting domestic production, he failed to address his administration’s blanket moratoriums on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and its fight against a judge’s order to rule on stalled permit applications. He mentioned the existence of open leases, but did not address efforts to discourage permits in known locations of oil such as a remote area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Obama also did not discuss obtaining oil domestically from shale or natural gas from hydraulic-fracturing. What he did reiterate was his State of the Union Address goal of generating 80 percent of electricity from “clean sources” by 2035 and lauded fuel-efficiency standards enacted in the early days of his presidency.

“Obama’s rhetoric and actions suggest he is still content with keeping America dependent on foreign oil, which jeopardizes our national security and further weakens our crippled economy,” said Project 21 member Jerome Hudson. “Why this administration fails to realize the potential for energy independence resting right under our own feet is mind-boggling. While the Middle East melts, Obama chooses to handcuff the world’s strongest entrepreneurial spirit to a dangerous path of perpetual energy dependence and a marginalized future devoid of economic growth.”

Borelli added: “Obama must stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. By stopping this regulatory assault on industries that meet the majority of our nation’s energy needs, Obama could remove uncertainty surrounding future costs and availability, which would encourage domestic hiring and allow people to invest and save more.”

“I applaud subcommittee chairman Ed Whitfield (KY) effort to expose the consequences of EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions on the job market. The EPA is taking the lead in advancing Obama’s war on fossil fuels and the agency’s primary weapon is to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately for hard working Americans, the cost of EPA’s action will make energy prices higher, drive jobs overseas and force more citizens to the unemployment line. Under the Obama Administration, the EPA has been transformed to a job killing machine,” said Deneen Borelli, full-time fellow of the National Center-sponsored Project 21 black conservative leadership network.

During a hearing before the same Subcommittee on February 9, Dr. Margo Thorning, chief economist at the American Council for Capital Formation, testified that EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, “will slow investment and job growth and have no significant impact on reducing global GHG emission growth.”

“Given the high-unemployment rate and soaring gasoline prices it’s unconscionable that Obama is allowing an agency under his control to add to the economic burdens of industry for no meaningful benefit to the environment,” added Deneen Borelli.

Dr. Thorning will be providing testimony at the hearing, “EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Regulations and Their Effect on American Jobs,” Tuesday, March 1, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. in 2322 Rayburn House Office Building.

“Congress needs to step up and stop EPA’s unrestrained effort to regulate our economy. The hearing will educate the public and lawmakers about the effects of EPA’s actions on job creation and likely provide evidence for elected officials to block the agency’s regulatory effort,” said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project.

“Our future economic prosperity depends on having a cheap and abundant supply of energy. Obama’s war on fossil fuels is really a war on the American way of life,” added Tom Borelli.

The Obama Administration’s FY2012 budget, released today, reduces funding to the Low Income Home Energy Program (LIPHEAP) to $2.57 billion — roughly in half compared with the 2009 budget. In its analysis, the Office of Management and Budget justifies the cut by reporting that “energy prices are now significantly lower, and the prior level is no longer sustainable.”

This year, the EPA began imposing carbon emissions restrictions expected to increase fossil fuel-related energy prices. As a candidate, Obama described such regulations as inherently expensive, saying: “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” In his State of the Union Address, Obama stressed his goal of 80 percent alternative energy production by 2035.

“Our goal as a society is to make people independent of government assistance, but the Obama Administration is cutting heating aid at the same time it is pursuing regulations that are sure to raise consumer prices on energy and virtually everything else,” said Deneen Borelli, full-time fellow with the Project 21 black leadership network. “Obama’s decision to cut heating aid illustrates the peril of government dependency since, at any point, the government can pull the plug leaving families out in the cold.”

“President Obama needs to realize that fossil fuels are vital to our economy and well-being, and now is not the time to ram renewable energy mandates down our throats. Let the free market, not the government, determine the amount of energy generated from renewable sources,” added Borelli.

The cut in heating aid provoked outrage from Obama’s staunchest supporters. Senator Jean Shaheen (D-NH) said such a cut would be “a severe impact on many of New Hampshire’s most vulnerable citizens.” Last week, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) wrote in a letter to Obama: “Cutting the program now would be devastating to the Northeast that depends on this support. If an increase is not an option we must do everything we can not to leave children and families out in the cold.”

Project 21′s Borelli continued: “People freezing now in the Northeast and elsewhere are not interested in Obama’s alternative energy goals for 2035. They want to know their power will be on and affordable in 2011, 2012 and 2013. America has the resources to become energy independent, but liberals who insist on alternative energy mandates want to stop efforts to develop new methods of exploration such as hydro-fracking for oil and natural gas, want moratoriums on existing drilling and further restrictions on coal. Obama is truly fulfilling his campaign goal of making our energy prices skyrocket – no matter how many suffer in the process.”

“After failing to legislatively enact cap-and-trade emissions regulations, the Obama Administration relied on a perverted interpretation of the Clean Air Act. America rang in the new year to new rules on energy and manufacturing that could cause our nation’s economic engine to seize up,” said Dana Joel Gattuso, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs.

On February 9, the Energy and Power Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on the discussion draft of “The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011.” This proposal, set to be introduced by Senator James Inhofe and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, specifies that the Clean Air Act is not to be used to address climate change and thereby bars EPA regulators from imposing and enforcing carbon restrictions based on the Act.

Regulations imposed by the Obama Administration on greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources that went into effect on January 2 could return the American economy to the conditions from which it is still trying to recover. According to Dr. Margo Thorning, chief economist at the American Council for Capital Formation, U.S. investment could decline by five to 15 percent — a decline as large as was seen at the beginning of the current recession in late 2007.

Furthermore, the Affordable Power Alliance estimates 2.5 million jobs will be destroyed by 2030, and household incomes will decrease by $1,200 a year while consumer prices will increase. In particular, the Alliance points out the discriminatory nature of the new rule, noting: “The EPA regulation will impact low income groups, the elderly and minorities disproportionately, both because they have lower incomes to begin with, but also because they have to spend proportionately more of their incomes…”

“What the Obama Administration is ramming down America’s throat is a cap without the trade, and it could plunge our nation further into recessionary despair,” added the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Gattuso. “This hearing on the Upton-Inhofe proposal is the first step in putting accountable, elected representatives back in charge of the duties assigned to them by our Constitution.”

“The NAACP, Al Sharpton, Marc Morial of the National Urban League and others command national attention whenever they allege racism in the tea party movement, but they’ve so far ignored the revolting comments caught on video in which leftists call for the hanging of a black Supreme Court justice,” noted Borelli, who is a frequent speaker at tea party events. “Comments such as these must be denounced far and wide, regardless of the political orientation of the person saying it. Calls for torture and lynching are not a matter of left and right — they are always wrong.”

Hundreds of liberal activists protested outside a conservative gathering in Rancho Mirage, California January 30. Christian Hartsock, an independent journalist attending a nearby Common Cause-sponsored conference affiliated with the rally, videotaped interviews at the protest.

Because a rally theme was the Supreme Court’s Citizens United campaign finance decision, Hartsock asked people about Justice Thomas.

Among the more outrageous and radical comments captured on video by Hartsock:

* A man said Thomas should be impeached and “put… back in the fields.” The same man also said Justice Samuel Alito “should go back to Sicily” and Fox News president Roger Ailes “should be strung up… kill the bastard!”

* A woman suggested that punishment for Thomas should be to “cut off his toes one-by-one and feed them to him.”

* Another woman, speaking about Thomas, said, “I’m all about peace… but I would say torture” him.

* Yet another woman threatened Thomas and his family, saying: “String him up… and his wife, too. Let’s get rid of Ginny [Thomas].”

* A man said the way to deal with Thomas is to “hang him.”

* A woman identifying herself as “Momma Donna” called herself Fox News host Glenn Beck’s “worst nightmare” and issued a challenge to duel Beck, warning “I pack Glock” — a handgun.

Along with the participants of the Common Cause conference, Hartsock said the rally was composed of people affiliated with Greenpeace, Code Pink, Progressive Democrats of America, organized labor groups and others.

Groups in the civil rights establishment, particularly the NAACP, unsuccessfully tried to portray the tea party movement as racist and extremist through presumptive allegations, misleading and sometimes doctored photos and web sites such as TeaPartyTracker.org (which apparently went dormant just before the 2010 elections). It is shocking that these groups and their leaders are now saying nothing about this blatant exhibition of violent radicalism on the left.

“The silence of the civil rights establishment is shocking. It would seem to demonstrate a political filter in which some incivility and racism is tolerated,” added Borelli. “In this twisted situation, race is used as a tool to maintain power and keep their followers on the liberal plantation.”

On July 17, 2010 on the Fox News Channel, Borelli asked NAACP senior vice president Hilary Shelton if his group would “issue a statement condemning those individuals” who target black conservatives for abuse based on their politics. At the time, Shelton replied, “Why, yes, ma’am… Just give us some details.” Despite the fact that he promptly was sent details and then a follow-up letter, no condemnation was ever issued by the NAACP.

Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie has also repeatedly challenged Al Shaprton, Marc Morial and former D.C. congressional delegate Walter Fauntroy to debate their past allegations about tea party extremism, but has yet to receive any replies.

Hartsock’s video and Shelton’s broken pledge can be seen (as of February 6, 2011) at conservativeblog.org .

Mychal Massie: “Has Obama had an epiphany, or is he still dazed from his shellacking from the American people in the November elections? From the beginning, he was a free-spending Keynesian. Now he’s talking about capping spending and ending earmarks. It’s inconsistent with his advocacy thus far. It’s too much like when Bill Clinton declared that the ‘era of big government’ was over back in his 1996 address. Changing the language without changing the behavior is nothing more than obfuscation, and would signal that the only one Obama seeks to benefit is himself.” (Mychal Massie is the chairman of the Project 21 black leadership network.)

Coby W. Dillard: “President Obama tried to convince us tonight that the state of the union needs additional and new ‘investment’ to be strong. One only needs to look at the investment that was the stimulus to see how spending borrowed money and blowing up the national debt was no solution. The new Congress was elected to stop the blank checks and to rein in a government operating in a manner that would destroy households or businesses. Only when President Obama makes the tough choices regarding removing the barriers to job growth, controlling entitlements and embracing fiscal responsibility will we see out union grow stronger.” (Coby W. Dillard is a member of Project 21 and a founder of the Hampton Roads Tea Party in southeastern Virginia.)

Lisa Fritsch: “If we are really serious about having American students ‘Race to the Top’ to be innovative and compete with the likes of China and India, then we’d better get serious about focusing on teaching math and science like China and India rather than sex education, diversity initiatives and healthy eating habits. And let’s do away with talk of the DREAM Act and wake up to the reality that legal immigration and citizenship is a prerequisite to our innovation and sovereignty. Not until we get serious about protecting our borders and defending our American values can we truly educate, prepare and utilize those who desire to be productive American citizens.” (Lisa Fritsch is a member of Project 21 and a freelance writer and talk show host in Austin, Texas.)

Cherylyn Harley LeBon: “After two years in office and a steady rise in unemployment, Americans are still waiting for a plan for job growth from this president. ‘Innovation,’ ‘education’ and ‘infrastructure’ are wonderful words which are meaningless unless they translate into jobs TODAY. The American people need to get back to work, pay their mortgages and put food on the table. At the moment, we are less concerned about initiatives which will come to fruition in 25 years.” (Cherylyn Harley LeBon is a member of Project 21 and a former senior counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee.)

Deneen Borelli: “President Obama’s energy agenda, as detailed in tonight’s address, is essentially tilting at windmills. He can dream all he wants about alternative energy sources, but Obama will stifle innovations for tomorrow if he hobbles fossil fuels today. Demonizing the oil companies and hampering their ability to produce is going to raise costs, destroy jobs and hurt our fragile economy. Like it our not, our nation needs fossil fuels.” (Deneen Borelli is a fellow with Project 21.)

Bishop E.W. Jackson: “There was no pivot in Obama’s speech this evening. Sure, it sounded good, but the first step in winning the future is not government encouraging innovation. The American people have been innovating since our country was formed. We need to stop the crushing burdens of debt and regulation which inhibit productivity. Only our American entrepreneurs can solve the dilemma we are now in. In order to do that, the government must get out of the way. To quote Ronald Reagan: ‘Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.’” (Bishop E.W. Jackson is a member of Project 21 and the founder of Exodus Faith Ministries in Chesapeake, Virginia.)

While Project 21 members see a nation looking for reassurance that the government is acting in its best interest and focusing on the key issues of economic stability and job creation, they do not expect more than rhetoric from President Obama.

“When the polite applause and the partisan demonstrations of loyalty cease in the wake of tonight’s address, will we have seen anything more than the same campaign-style rhetoric we have come to expect from this president? I don’t think so,” said Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie. “Despite his get-tough talk of late on spending and his alleged epiphany on regulations, there is no getting around the fact that Barack Obama’s spending leaves George W. Bush’s disregard for the taxpayers’ burden in the dust. There is no getting around the fact that Obama’s heavy-handed regulatory agenda is set up to continue his agenda where the peoples’ new representatives are being told to hold the line. What I expect is a deceptively stylish speech from a desperate man who hopes to convince a very worried nation that he possesses the leadership they need. Unfortunately, he does not.”

Project 21′s Kevin Martin added: “I don’t believe President Obama’s speech tonight will do much more than instill a short-term aura of confidence in his leadership. And, even then, there are fewer and fewer left who are likely to believe him. I expect the address to be long on new ideas and policies, but short on how they can be funded without further contributing to our exploding national debt. Furthermore, Obama will likely ignore his vote against increasing the debt ceiling from when he was a senator, instead asking for a blank check to tackle our economic woes in the only way he seems to know how — more spending. Supporters hope Obama’s speech will set a course for the remainder of his term. Before he can do that, however, Obama must actually take control of the currently rudderless ship of state.”

Project 21 full-time fellow Deneen Borelli added: “President Obama should end his war on fossil fuels by having the EPA immediately cease his plan to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and ease drilling restrictions in the Gulf of Mexico. These actions would eliminate the air of uncertainty surrounding businesses who are hesitant to invest in manufacturing facilities and stimulate job creation through exploration of our natural resources. By now, Obama should realize his pledge to make energy prices “skyrocket” is bad for business investment and job creation.”

I answered someone just the other day when they demanded smaller gun magazines, that the continued creation of gun free zones and gun control measures was doing what in limiting gun violence? Even a close, lifelong friend suggested to me that perhaps it was time to limit magazine capacity. Former V.P. Dick Cheney suggested it and hoards of gun haters, and not so much gun haters, are “compromising” to say it’s reasonable to restrict gun rights in this fashion because………well, why is it?

The strongest argument I have heard, which is weak at best, is that if we limit magazine capacity fewer people will get killed when a deranged bastard decides to annihilate masses of people. There actually may be some substance to such an argument but let’s consider the truth, if only for a moment.

The first question to ask is how many lawful citizens that you know of kill people randomly? The Tuscon massacre was a planned out event. Do you honestly believe that Loughner would NOT have been able to get his hands on a 30-round magazine if they were deemed illegal to own?

But, I’ve been down this road a thousand times before and you can discuss the ins and outs of what restricting magazines would accomplish, if anything. However, in everything that is discussed about guns and gun restrictions, remember that owning and possessing arms is a constitutional right.

Now, back to the idiot who coined the phrase, “all rights come with restrictions”. Why do all rights come with restrictions? Most hide behind the argument that it’s for public safety or for the public good. The most overused example is that of free speech – you can’t yell “fire” in a movie theater, when there is no fire.

So let me ask you this question. Is making it unlawful to yell “fire” in a movie theater, defined as a restriction on free speech, provide for a safer experience watching a movie? Jazz Shaw, in a post at Hot Air, asks, “Shall we cut out all of our tongues to ensure they are not used maliciously?” One might think doing such would eliminate movie theater chaos. People with a deeper understanding would know that a person bent on creating the chaos would find another way to do it.

Would restricting gun owners to smaller magazines, result in fewer people killed? In reality, we have no way of knowing that. In this instance of gun rights limitations, the result of implementing such a restriction is minimal as far as public safety may be concerned but detrimental as far as the incremental chiseling away at Second Amendment rights. If not a 30-round magazine, then what? 20 rounds? 10 rounds? No rounds? Where is the line drawn? A line that was forced to be drawn because people actually thought limiting magazine capacity would limit crime.

An argument to limit magazine size is inane. To help explain that, let’s make some comparisons that most people would laugh at. First, let’s list out a bunch of things, in addition to guns, that are used, whether intentional or not, to kill people: cars, knives, baseball bats, drugs, golf clubs, chemicals, beer bottles, rope, razor blades, electricity, and you can add to this list all you would like.

Like the idea of limiting magazine size, we should then consider limiting certain things with these items readily used to kill people. With automobiles, we have done many things in an attempt to protect passengers in a car. We all know the saying – speed kills. Shouldn’t we then, using the same rationale as the magazine limitation, restrict motor sizes in vehicles? Or perhaps equip them all with a governor that presets a maximum speed? Limit the number of passengers? Create a 30-day waiting period before you can buy a car and by all means let’s limit ownership to just one?

Knives should then be either made with shorter or duller blades, made of material that can’t be sharpened or made jagged. Baseball bats should have limits on length and size, no more than 2 to a home or Little League team; drugs containing smaller doses; chemicals in smaller containers, beer bottles all made from non shattering plastic; razor blades can only be purchased one to a pack, and electricity in reduced amperes that would limit the killing power to say, just five people. Isn’t this all just silly? What are we doing about the sick individuals who want to hurt people?

The absurdity can never end. We’ve looked at Second Amendment and one right in the First Amendment, speech. Think of the others guaranteed in the First, i.e. religion, press, assembling, petitioning. Granted there are always cries under certain situations to place restrictions on all of these rights. Most are quickly rejected, so far, by the majority. But, do we treat these guarantees in the same fashion as the right to keep and bear arms?

For those who believe a reasonable compromise on gun restrictions would be to limit magazine capacity, let me leave you with this comment I found on the above Hot Air column I linked to:

Let’s say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with “GUN RIGHTS” written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, “Give me that cake.”

I say, “No, it’s my cake.”

You say, “Let’s compromise. Give me half.” I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, “Give me that cake.”

I say, “No, it’s my cake.”

You say, “Let’s compromise.” What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what’s left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise — let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 — and I’m left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I’m sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites — we’ll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders — and I’m left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you’ve got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I’m left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you’re standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being “reasonable”, and wondering “why we won’t compromise”.

I’m done with being reasonable, and I’m done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been “reasonable” nor a genuine “compromise”.

LawDog

Tom Remington

Experts with the National Center for Public Policy Research cite Immelt’s close ties with Obama on policy matters such as cap-and-trade and his ineffective leadership at GE as proof that this new council will not possess the dynamic leadership it deserves.

“Tragically, the continuing Obama-Immelt partnership is going to drive our economy and job creation over a cliff. Their war on fossil fuels is only going to drive jobs overseas,” said Deneen Borelli, a fellow with the Project 21 black leadership network. “Americans stated loudly and clearly in last November’s elections that ‘We the People’ will not stand for policies that expands government and raises energy prices. Putting Immelt in charge of this new council sends exactly the wrong message.”

According to Obama, the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness will “focus its work on finding new ways to encourage the private sector to hire and invest in American competitiveness.” Immelt, in a January 21 Washington Post commentary boasting of his appointment, wrote: “My hope is that the council will be a sounding board for ideas and a catalyst for action on jobs and competitiveness. It will include large businesses, small businesses, labor, economists and government.”

“Obama and Immelt are mutually dependent on each other. Obama needs corporate money for his re-election campaign and Immelt needs the president’s muscle to continue the Administration’s war on cheap energy to make GE’s renewable energy products economically competitive,” said Tom Borelli, Ph.D, director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project. “Making energy prices skyrocket is not an economic recovery plan. It’s a recipe for economic disaster.”

As CEO of General Electric, Immelt directly participated in promoting Obama’s “cap-and-trade” energy regulations proposal. While this could increase GE’s short-term business in wind and solar technologies, the consequences of the policy is certain — by Obama’s own admission — to “skyrocket” energy costs. GE has additionally sold technology to Iran and it is planning on sharing jet engine technology with China. GE also lobbied for and received tens of millions in stimulus money and received financial support from the Federal Reserve. During Immelt’s ten-year reign as CEO, GE had to cut its dividend and its stock price has fallen to about half its previous value.

Obama’s pick of Immelt will undoubtedly provoke the further ire of tea party activists already unhappy with the White House’s big-government agenda. A recent nationwide poll conducted by FreedomWorks and the National Center, which can be found at www.nationalcenter.org/PR-Tea_Party_Survey_112310.html, found that GE was extremely unpopular with conservatives due to Immelt’s reliance on the government and support of Obama’s policies.

“Innovation and job creation will not come from someone who is already marching in lock-step with President Obama’s big government agenda,” added Deneen Borelli. “America needs economic leaders who embrace the entrepreneurial spirit not CEO leeches who feed on taxpayer money for revenue. Lead by the tea party movement, voters rejected progressive policies and cleaned house on Capitol Hill. If this council is going to be anything more than a continuation of the White House’s attempt to woo big business to Obama’s big government agenda, Immelt will provoke tea party activists.”

Bishop Council Nedd II: “Today’s bipartisan vote in the House to repeal ObamaCare is not an end to the debate but a beginning. It is the clarion call for a larger effort to begin improving our health care system using free market solutions such as tax incentives that promote individuals’ choices, tort reform and an end to mandates that put bureaucrats in control of personal health choices.” (Project 21 member Council Nedd II is a bishop with the Episcopal Missionary Church who lives near Pittsburgh.)

Cherylyn Harley LeBon: “While we recognize that the repeal of ObamaCare will face an uphill battle, we need to remember the reasons why it is necessary to do it: repeal will promote job growth by preventing the implementation of mandates and penalties; stop an additional $500 billion increase in new taxes and prevent a massive new entitlement our country simply cannot afford.” (Project 21 member Cherylyn Harley LeBon is a former senior counsel on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee who lives in northern Virginia.)

Ak’Bar Shabazz: “Although conservatives likely have little chance of completely overturning the liberal power grab they called health care reform right now with this particular bill, the symbolism should be applauded. Government spending over the past few years, and especially under President Obama, is threatening to surpass legal levels. Having the federal government additionally assume control of over nearly 20 percent of the existing American economy is a measure that is sure to end in costly inefficiencies, fraud and unsustainable debt that will cripple future generations.” (Project 21 member Ak’Bar Shabazz is a small business owner who lives in the Atlanta metro area.)

R. Dozier Gray: “ObamaCare ought to be repealed, but not because of the results of the mid-term elections nor current political polls. ObamaCare needs to be repealed because the bill passed last March is flawed, partisan and premised on — to put it mildly — questionable constitutional grounds. Lawmakers must go on record now and often to advocate the repeal of all or parts of this scheme. The debate must not die. Those who want to kill the debate prematurely do so only because they realize the truth is not on their side.” (Project 21 member R. Dozier Gray, is an analyst who lives in northern Virginia.)