↓ Freedom Centers


Take A Look At The New ‘Consensus’ On Global Warming

The Daily Caller

A scientific consensus has emerged among top mainstream climate scientists that “skeptics” or “lukewarmers” were not long ago derided for suggesting — there was a nearly two-decade long “hiatus” in global warming that climate models failed to accurately predict or replicate.

A new paper, led by climate scientist Benjamin Santer, adds to the ever-expanding volume of “hiatus” literature embracing popular arguments advanced by skeptics, and even uses satellite temperature datasets to show reduced atmospheric warming.

More importantly, the paper discusses the failure of climate models to predict or replicate the “slowdown” in early 21st century global temperatures, which was another oft-derided skeptic observation. Continue reading

Harnessing Competition To Lower Medicine Costs Vs. Engaging In Cynical Political Theatre

By George Landrith • RedState

The Maryland legislature has recently passed a law, H.B. 631, that will harm patient access to affordable generic medications. It will go into effect later this year without the Governor’s signature, due to his concerns that the law has serious constitutional deficiencies and would likely restrict Marylander’s access to effective, affordable generic drugs.

Sadly, Maryland has jumped off a proverbial cliff and will harm its own citizens while cynically claiming to protect them. Perhaps Maryland is a lost cause, but the more interesting question is will other states follow Maryland over the cliff? Continue reading

To New York Times, Bipartisanship Means Blaming GOP When Both Democrats And Republicans Are Shot

By Mollie Hemingway • The Federalist 

The media’s big problem right now is that everyone in the country knows how they’d be covering yesterday’s shooting if the parties were reversed.

Progressive Democratic activist James Hodgkinson spent years on social media and in local and national politics focusing on his hatred of Republican politicians. On Wednesday, he went after a group of Republican politicians as they practiced baseball in the early morning, shooting a member of the Republican leadership, two capitol police, a legislative aide, and a lobbyist. Rep. Steve Scalise remains in critical condition.

Hodgkinson’s social media trail and the accounts of neighbors leave no question that the man was politically engaged, aligned with progressives, and upset with Republicans.

Some media coverage of the incident has been fine, if restrained. The media have not chosen to make this shooting a referendum on leftist political violence, on the use of extreme rhetoric and conspiracy theorizing by major mainstream media, on the dangers of the resistance movement. There has been no rush to introspection. Continue reading

The Weaselly Licker – Leaker

By Dr. Miklos K. Radvanyi • Frontiers of Freedom

Few of the forty four presidents who preceded the present one have been as vilified as Donald J. Trump is. The billionaire with his passion for dealmaking is detested by the Republican establishment as an outsider who beat sixteen allegedly more qualified Republicans. The Democrats treat him as an illegitimate impostor, an incompetent upstart, and a marauding gravedigger of the United States of America. The overwhelming majority of the biased media alternately label him as a fraud, a criminal, a soulless money grubber, a traitor, and a deranged warmonger. Additional lurid claims about the forty fifth president are fueled by the Washington, DC grapevine without any factual basis and even a kernel of truth.

The ubiquitous hatred that the electoral victory of President Trump aroused is in itself an alarming sign of the authoritarian nature of the power hungry members of the entrenched power centers within all three branches of the federal government and beyond – including

Continue reading

Frontiers of Freedom Opposes the Federalization of State Tort Law

Frontiers of Freedom released the following statement:

Frontiers of Freedom opposes the federal government placing caps on medical malpractice damages.  H.R. 1215, entitled the Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017, is at its core a federal power grab — making what has always been a matter of state law, a federal matter.

Frontiers of Freedom signed a coalition letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan, outlining the groups’ opposition to H.R. 1215.  That letter can be found here.

Our system of constitutional federalism envisioned a dynamic arrangement where states acted as laboratories of liberty. It is a serious mistake to override that process with federal mandates in an arena that belongs to the states.

The idea of state legislatures and state law placing caps on tort damages may be worthwhile.  But tort law has always been a matter of state law and our constitutional system of federalism demands that Congress respect that states, not the federal government, are responsible for state tort law.

H.R. 1215 stands in direct contradiction to the Constitution’s checks and balances, system of federalism, and separation of powers. One of Frontiers of Freedom’s primary missions is to preserve the Constitution’s checks and balances, system of federalism, separation of powers, and guarantee of basic rights as the foundation of America’s freedom. Thus, H.R. 1215 violates the very principles Frontiers of Freedom stands for.

H.R. 1215 represents an egregious and unwarranted expansion of federal power over the traditional role of states in tort law, not to mention regulation of health care. With the rigorous national debate on repeal of the Affordable Care Act, it should be obvious that nationalizing healthcare or even tort law is fraught with danger and could have very negative policy outcomes.

Nearly all states have spoken to the issue of malpractice damages either by instituting caps of their own or, alternatively, barring such restrictions legislatively or via court decision. It is not the proper role of the federal government to overrule state governments on matters that are entirely within the state’s purview. It is time for Congress to stop the continued creeping encroachment of federal mandates over state law and issues that should rightfully be regulated at the state and local level.

Fake Comments Supporting Net Neutrality Flooding in From Russia

by Elizabeth Harrington • Washington Free Beacon

The Federal Communications Commission is being inundated with fake comments supporting net neutrality from foreign countries, including Russia.

An analysis by the National Legal and Policy Center, an ethics watchdog group, revealed that over 235,000 new comments asking the FCC to keep the Obama-era rules have foreign email domains.

“A forensic analysis of comments received between May 24th and May 30th shows that the FCC was flooded with 236,999 comments from domains in France, Russia and Germany,” the group said. “The comments came almost exclusively from three email domains: Yahoo.fr (France), Mail.ru (Russia) and Yahoo.de (Germany). An analysis of hundreds of the comments shows that most appear to come from fake email addresses and fake physical addresses overseas.” Continue reading

Attempts to Dismantle On-Campus Recruiting Sure to Be a Lose-Lose

By George Landrith • NewsMax

The eager graduates who walk across a stage in cap and gown this month will hear the same question over and over from friends and relatives: “Have you found a job yet?” Those who are lucky enough to already have a job lined up may have found employment through companies that recruit on campus. As any college student or alumnus can attest, on-campus recruitment plays a central role in launching many post-graduation careers. By maximizing hiring efficiency for entry-level positions for college graduates, campus recruitment benefits not just students, but also, employers, colleges, and universities.

And yet, this pillar of our labor market has recently come under fire. Why? Some claim campus recruiting discriminates against older job applicants.

Fortunately, the courts have, so far, upheld the legality of campus recruiting. For the sake of students (both young and old), businesses, government, and the economy as a whole, I hope that view continues to prevail. The reality is that on-campus recruiting is not discriminatory and there really is no substitute for its efficiencies and effectiveness.

To start with, where else can you find a pool of hundreds or thousands of qualified jobseekers? Access to that talent pool allows employers numerous benefits. To name a few:

  • Known quantity and quality: Before coming to a campus, prospective employers consider the majors a school offers, the quality of its programs, and past experiences with recruits from that school. [Source: NACE 2016 Recruiting Benchmarks Survey]. Recruiting on campus is especially valuable for professions that require particular coursework, certifications, or degrees, or that seek individuals who have completed an academically rigorous program. For example, if an employer wants students with a degree from a high-caliber agricultural science program, it makes sense to recruit at schools with a track record of excellence in that area.
  • Timing is everything: Organizations that visit campuses fit in dozens of interviews each day. It’s a far more efficient and cost-effective process than the work of scheduling one-off interviews with candidates, including in many cases arranging for transport or travel. Likewise, student job seekers can interview with multiple employers without having to leave campus or even miss a class.
  • Comparative advantage: On-campus recruiting also allows prospective employers to compare numerous applicants from the same campus. By comparing, for example, applicants’ grades, faculty recommendations, and extracurricular commitments, employers can make offers to the best talent from a particular university.
  • Day one readiness: In many industries, it is essential to arrive on the job with the most current knowledge in the field. For example, in accounting, new hires need to be up to speed on relevant technology, as well as applicable accounting standards and regulations. The costs of teaching new employees foundational information are substantial. Recruiting on campuses and among recent graduates helps employers better ensure that they are getting candidates who can hit the ground running.

Each year, an impressive range of prospective employers recruit on college campuses: consulting firms, technology companies, governmental entities, public interest groups … the list goes on and on. A 2016 survey found that nearly 98 percent of firms who responded conducted on-campus recruiting. I’m thrilled that students have a vast array of paths to consider and pursue as they take that first step toward building their career — whether it’s in crop production, finance, the public sector, or something else entirely.

It’s hard to overstate how significant the impact on hiring practices would be if courts were to change course and limit prospective employers’ ability to recruit current students or recent graduates — on-campus or elsewhere. Just look at the federal government, which through the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, enforces the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). To name just a few examples of the government’s recruitment of students and recent graduates:

  • In 2010, President Obama established the Pathways Program. The goal was to replace a patchwork of predecessor campus and graduate hiring programs with a streamlined recruiting program aimed to hire talented students and recent graduates for federal government positions. Under the Trump administration, agencies continue to use the Pathways Program to meet their hiring needs.
  • Similarly, the Department of Labor — responsible for enforcing the country’s employment laws — has a highly esteemed Solicitor of Labor Honors Program. The program requires that applicants graduate from law school in the semester before starting the program, or finish a judicial clerkship, which students typically complete within a few years of graduating from law school.
  • The Attorney General’s Honors Program, which, for decades, has recruited entry-level attorneys to Department of Justice, “has been recognized as the nation’s premier entry-level federal attorney recruitment program.” Eligibility “is limited to graduating law students and recent law school graduates who entered judicial clerkships, graduate law programs, or qualifying legal fellowships within 9 months of law school graduation.”
  • Even federal district and appellate court judges, some of whom are now hearing these newly minted claims challenging campus recruiting, generally aim to hire for their prestigious clerkships applicants who are in law school or who recently graduated from law school.

Significantly, campus recruitment in no way excludes older applicants. Universities enroll both young and old students. According to government data, more than 13 percent of all graduates from American campuses were over the age of 40 for the 2014-2015 academic year. That’s more than 625,000 older students, who were able to take advantage of on-campus recruiting. [Note: these figures include graduate and undergraduate degree recipients, including awards of less than one academic year]. Many older students start college or graduate school after serving in the military, working, or starting a family. These students often enter school with a clear sense of their post-graduation career goals, and they are among those who benefit extensively from on-campus recruitment opportunities.

In short, on-campus recruitment is efficient, beneficial, and non-discriminatory. It should be here to stay.

George Landrith is the President and CEO of Frontiers of Freedom, a public policy think tank devoted to promoting a strong national defense, free markets, individual liberty, and constitutionally limited government.

Sen. Warren’s Hearing Aid Gambit Helps Big Business, Harms Patients

By George Landrith • NewsMax

When I heard that Sen. Elizabeth Warren had introduced the “Over the Counter Hearing Aid Act of 2017” claiming that she wanted to create an all new over-the-counter (OTC) category for personal sound amplification products (PSAPs), I knew something disingenuous was afoot.

Sen. Warren has not been a champion of deregulation or of making government less intrusive. So I dug a little deeper, and found that Warren’s bill expands the power of federal bureaucrats, eliminates state authority, and reduces consumer access to amplification devices by making them more expensive and highly regulated. That’s not how she advertises the bill, but that’s how it would be described if truth in labeling laws applied to Congress.

Today, without her proposed law, there are PSAPs legally available at Best Buy, Walmart, and thousands of other stores and outlets for very reasonable prices. Anyone can buy these devices. They simply amplify sound — some use them for bird watching, others to snoop on conversations that are ordinarily out of ear shot.

These PSAPs are different from medical hearing aids in that hearing aids are designed for people who have measurable hearing loss and require a doctor to help determine the cause of the hearing loss and the most appropriate way to correct the problem. All hearing loss isn’t the same. So doctors play an appropriate role in helping the patient find and tailor the right solution. These medical hearing aids are not used for snooping or songbird listening. They are specifically tailored to the patient.

The bottom line is that PSAPs are not medical hearing aids and they don’t need to be regulated like medical hearing aids.

But Sen. Warren wants to subject PSAPs to FDA regulation and explicitly lock states out of any role in the process, and then designate these PSAPs as available “over-the-counter” as if that were some big new innovation — conveniently failing to mention that they are already available to anyone at thousands of stores.

So what is Sen. Warren really up to?

It appears that Sen. Warren is working at the behest of big corporations who feel they could make more money selling PSAPs if they were regulated because that would make them seem more “big time” and “high tech” and make them seen more like medical hearing aids. That would allow them to charge more and give them new marketing material. In fact, Bose, the famous speaker maker, markets a relatively expensive PSAP called “HearPhones.” They are located in Sen. Warren’s home state. These amplification devices aren’t medical hearing aids, but they could pretend to be “quasi” hearing aids with Sen. Warren’s new bill. That’s the real goal — more sales, higher prices, and more profits for Bose and other corporations.

But Sen. Warren’s bill will do nothing to give consumers and patients greater access or lower prices. And it certainly won’t lead to more innovation. A new layer of regulation is not a stimulator of innovation — it squashes innovation. What it will do is empower federal bureaucrats and lead to poorer healthcare by eliminating the doctor-patient relationship in finding the right hearing aid and tailoring it to the patient’s needs. Without a doctor’s input, serious hearing problems can go undiagnosed and if untreated, options can be forever lost.

Another downside to designating something over-the-counter is that insurance and Medicaid coverage usually cease to cover them. So in Sen. Warren’s zeal to confer a regulatory benefit upon a few well-heeled corporations hoping for bigger profits, she is willing to endanger coverage for legitimate medical hearing aids to those who need them most — including many veterans with hearing loss due to combat injuries.

So while Sen. Warren makes it sound like she wants to spur innovation, reduce costs, and improve patient access to hearing aids, she isn’t shooting straight. In fact, she is doing the exact opposite. It is a great con. A lot like when she claimed she was a Native American to help her land a great job at Harvard. The truth wasn’t important. She wove a story — even though false — to benefit her. Likewise, truth is the first casualty with her fake Over the Counter Hearing Aid Act. She benefits big corporations and big government, not consumers or patients.

George Landrith is the President and CEO of Frontiers of Freedom, a public policy think tank devoted to promoting a strong national defense, free markets, individual liberty, and constitutionally limited government.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn – Hearing Aid Bill

Representative Marsha Blackburn

Rep. Michael Burgess – Hearing Aid Bill

Representative Michael Burgess