He’s also a radical. Conservatives who were outraged by Van Jones should be apoplectic about his tenure when they consider that — according to their website — OSHA “inspected 38,579 workplaces during Fiscal Year 2006.”

David Michaels was behind the junk-science efforts to smear Bisphenol A (BPA) , an innovative chemical used to make plastics stronger. A few months ago, I wrote about BPA. Here’s an excerpt:

If you’re unfamiliar with Bisphenol A (BPA), it is a chemical used to make lightweight, versatile, durable, high-performance plastics. It’s also one of the most extensively tested products in the world. For example, as Norris Alderson, the FDA’s associate commissioner for science, said just last year, “a large body of available evidence” demonstrates that products made with it are safe.

As I went on to describe in that piece, the attacks on BPA were headed by organizations funded by liberals such as George Soros. As the Washington Times recently reported,

Mr. Michaels heads a group called the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP), which is extremely friendly to plaintiffs’ lawyers and is funded in large part by George Soros’ Open Society Institute.

The anti-BPA scare-campaign cost consumers untold millions of dollars and untold numbers of jobs. That’s not to mention the amount of emotional damage this junk-science inflicted on Americans who were sure they had harmed their baby by giving them the wrong plastic bottle. … Oh yeah, Michaels’ also helped line the pockets of trial lawyers who made money by suing manufacturers of products made with BPA. All of this, despite countless evidence that BPA was safe.

Sadly, avoiding an over-regulated business climate that kills jobs and scares parents is not all we have to worry about.

Like Obama’s other “Czars” and appointees, Michaels’ brand of radicalism extends beyond his area of expertise. In fact, Michaels sees even the 2nd Amendment as a work-place “regulatory” issue where he might, as head of OSHA, intervene.

Compared to Michaels, Mr. Van Jones is Mr. Dick Van Dyke.

As everyone knows, the music industry allows — and even encourages — us to download songs off of our personal cd and upload a personal copy to our computer and iPod.  As a trade-off, we often purchase songs for $.99 from them.  Millions of Americans do this every day.  But the movie industry is so opposed to the modern notion that consumers should be permitted to take ownership of their own dvds that they actually sued — and were granted a temporary injunction against — an innovative product called RealDVD which would permit consumers to make personal copies of their dvd collection.  

This lawsuit is so bad that even the LA Times authored an editorial this week, titled “Hollywood Control Freaks,” which says:

“RealNetworks’ RealDVD software and Kaleidescape’s home servers drew fire in part because they can make permanent copies of the rented or borrowed discs. But people who are so inclined can do that already with tools that are cheaper and less restrictive. More important to the studios, RealNetworks and Kaleidescape add value to a movie collection by making it easier to manage and watch. In so doing, they increase the incentive to own a movie rather than just rent it.

One lesson from the technology industry is that there is a trade-off between controlling products and unleashing the innovation that spurs growth. Just look at how well the iPhone has fared since Apple invited independent developers to create applications for it. Hollywood should remember the principle underlying the case against China: Centralized control stifles a market. Rather than trying to stop potentially disruptive technologies and business models, Hollywood should find a way to harness them.”  

Hollywood is losing revenue — partly because they no longer make compelling movies that people want to see.  But they are also in trouble because — unlike the movie industry — they have failed to embrace emerging technogies that would allow them to better serve 21st century consumers.

So when Ohio talks, professional pols should listen. And Ohioans are speaking up most strongly against ObamaCare abortions. The latest poll shows more than two out of three Ohioans oppose taxpayer-funded abortions. Most interesting, the poll shows that fully half (50.7% to 31.6%) of President Obama’s voters in Ohio oppose being forced to pay for the killing of the unborn. There’s no gender gap in these figures, either. Ohio women oppose it by a powerful 66.4% to 17.1%; Ohio’s men oppose this cruel and unjust practice by 68.9% to 21.9%).

Opposition to taxpayer-funded abortion spans the entire state with the northwest recording an astounding 86.3% against. Even in northeast Ohio, 55.1% oppose. In no part of the state does this idea come close to commanding majority support.

Because Ohioans are so strong in their pro-life convictions, Democrats as well as Republicans stand up for life in Congress. Marcy Kaptur (D-9) and Steven Driehaus (D-1) have both told Speaker Pelosi they will not go along with a government takeover of health care if it involves federal funding for abortion. Regrettably, however, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) voted against an amendment in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee that would have spared Ohioans from being morally implicated in the taking of innocent human lives.

President Obama told Pope Benedict XVI that he wants to “reduce” abortions in America. But every study—including those by the pro-abortion groups themselves—shows convincingly that federal funding for abortion greatly increases the numbers of lives taken. The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) estimates that as many as 300,000 abortions a year can result from federal funding. AGI is a spinoff of Planned Parenthood, which has annually increased the number of unborn children killed in its facilities over the past quarter century. Today, fully 350,000 abortions annually are done by these traffickers in human misery.

President Obama must know these figures too. That is why his pledge to reduce abortions does not pass the straight face test. He may say he wants to reduce abortions, but making them free is hardly a policy calculated to achieve that result. And sluicing vast sums of public monies to Planned Parenthood—the largest purveyor of abortion in the world—is a curious way to reduce the deadly annual toll. Worldwide, abortions annually account for as many as 50 million deaths.

There is a great deal of confusion about Obama’s plan to take over health care. One thing is indisputable: unless abortion is explicitly ruled out, it’s ruled in. Six times in the HELP committee, minority members tried to get it ruled out. And six times they were defeated.
So now it’s in there.

That’s not the only reason to oppose ObamaCare. But it is certainly a powerful one.
Just knowing that this whole new government effort will be superintended by Health and Human Services Sec. Kathleen Sebelius—the most pro-abortion governor in U.S. history—should give us all pause.

President Obama has spoken eloquently of the need for civility and respect in the debate about abortion. We also need honesty. The strongest advocates of liberalized abortion see it as a “benefit.” They think they are helping the poor by providing this “service” to them.
Let them make their case to the American people. Don’t hide behind phrases designed to cloak what is being done. “Full reproductive services” and “community health services to women” are well-known catch-phrases designed to cover up the hard reality of abortion.

We have had thirty-three years of experience with these well-known dodges. So we keep coming back to the central truth in this debate: Americans do not want to be forced to pay for the killing of unborn children. And Ohioans are very American.

Amazing. But then, in smaller type, read this: “The Race to Reform.” That lesser headline is the Administration’s answer to the slippage the grim polling figures disclose.

Since his much-hailed 100-day mark last April, President Obama’s handling of health care, the Post’s poll reveals, has declined in public approval from 57 percent to 49 percent. Disapproval has increased from 29 percent to 44 percent.

Of particular worry to this still-new Administration is the hemorrhaging of support among the independents. Among these voters, Obama held a long lead on his health care proposals back in April—53 percent approval to only 30 percent disapproval.

April, T.S. Eliot wrote, is the cruelest month, but today the President can only look back longingly for it. Today, his health care proposals have taken on a sickly pallor among independents. Forty-four percent of them approve what he’s offering; 49 percent disapprove. That’s a stunning loss of 1 in 5 independent voters to the President’s team on health care.

As Mr. Obama’s health care picture has come into focus, more and more Americans are reacting negatively to the scene before them. The Post poll even shows President Obama losing ground among moderate to conservative Democrats. In particular, these Democrats favored spending over fiscal discipline by 2-1 last winter. Now, they are evenly divided as they join the growing chorus of concern over how health care costs will balloon the deficit.

What these numbers do not show is intensity. As more and more Americans learn what could be in store for them and their children, their opposition grows. The more knowledgeable they are, the more strongly they oppose Obamacare.

The President’s team is trying desperately to sell the idea that unless we rein in health care costs, the budget’s red ink will only get redder. The Congressional Budget Office, however, is not singing off the same song sheet. Last week, the CBO scored the latest House version of health care and said it would cost $1.5 Trillion. With Medicare already in deep financial trouble, it strains credulity to think that a huge new government entitlement will reduce costs.

All this explains what the Post yesterday morning called “the race to reform.” The Obama Administration knows that its time is limited. If the President does not ram through a health care plan before the August recess, there is real fear that slipping support will frighten already skittish centrist Democrats in Congress.

The White House’s Rahm Emmanuel is becoming the Administration’s hammer. He’s pressing all Democrats, and pressing them hard, not to allow this to be the second Democratic administration—after the famous Hillary & Bill crackup of 1993-94—to fail to deliver on its promises of major health care legislation. Doubtless Rahm (he might be re-named Ram after all of this) is warning worried Democrats that failure to enact something could result in major GOP gains in the mid-term elections next year.

Enter the abortion question. Over the weekend, the President’s Budget Director, Peter Orszag appeared on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.

WALLACE: Are you prepared to say that in a government public-funded, taxpayer-funded public health insurance plan that no taxpayer money will go to pay for abortions?

ORSZAG: I think that that will wind up being part of the debate. I am not prepared to say explicitly that right now. It’s obviously a controversial issue, and it’s one of the questions that is playing out in this debate.

WALLACE: So you’re not prepared to rule out…

ORSZAG: I’m not prepared to rule it out.

Mark his words well: If abortion is not ruled out, it’s ruled in. This is huge. Ever since 1977, American taxpayers have been spared from the terrible violation of their consciences entailed in killing unborn children with their tax dollars.

Democrats and Republicans have supported the Hyde Amendment that prevents U.S. tax dollars from going to this cruel and unjust practice. Even Democratic President Jimmy Carter supported the Hyde Amendment—and signed it. Republican Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush all staunchly backed the Hyde Amendment. Under Democratic President Bill Clinton—with Bill and Hillary strongly backing the repeal of the Hyde Amendment—a Democratic Congress refused to go along.

If ever there was a bi-partisan consensus, it is that Americans should not be forced to pay for the killing of the unborn. It’s a matter of conscience. It’s a matter of domestic tranquility. What Peter Orszag and his boss, President Obama, are “not prepared to rule out” is the tearing up of the enduring social contract between our government and our fellow citizens – the tough cord of governance by “We, the People” woven through our long history.

Millions of Americans who are not actively pro-life nonetheless do not support federal subsidies for abortion. They recognize that federal funding of abortion is a form of coercion: Compelling people to pay for something that their most fundamental moral convictions rebel against.
That’s why President Obama and his hard-Left congressional allies have to move fast.

They must ram this measure through a fretful Congress before millions of pro-life Democrats and independents awaken to the fact that their money will be going to kill future taxpayers. Perhaps it’s this growing realization of the danger they face that is producing—for the first time—a Gallup Poll that says 51 percent of Americans regard themselves as pro-life.

It is indeed a “race to reform.” Liberals are riding the Pale Horse. They will not accept a health care plan that does not include funding for abortion-on-demand. Every pro-life American must understand what the pro-life House Democrats already understand—unless abortion is specifically ruled out, it’s in. Your U.S. Representative and your two U.S. Senators need to know how you think—and now.

Guinier’s remarks were part of a televised forum on C-SPAN about the “state of the black union” in America, during which she told moderator Tavis Smiley that standardized testing, such as that used in the college admissions process, is a form of “modern scientific racism.”

For those of you who cannot quite recall Guinier’s brief appearance on the national political stage, she was Bill Clinton’s choice for assistant attorney general for civil rights in 1993.  I recall some initial excitement over the fact that a black woman had been nominated for such high position but her nomination quickly unraveled as her record came to light. 

Guinier’s agenda of pure racial quotas and proportional racial representation in local elections was so profoundly radical that Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun, the only black woman in the U.S. Senate at the time, urged Clinton to withdraw the nomination, which he did.

Guinier is bringing the same incendiary brand of racial politics to higher education.  In Guinier’s world, “when they talk about tests and they talk about metrics and they talk about looking at empirics, that is a way of making racism invisible.”  Tell that to the millions of young black men and women who have successfully applied themselves to academic achievement and careers beyond it.

Guinier goes on to insult hard working students and diminish their academic success in explaining her rationale, saying, “the reason that I’m calling it racism is because it is a state of mind that is indifferent to the fact that these tests, whatever you think about them, are having a disparate impact on different populations and violating that first principal that talent is equally distributed among all groups.”

The audacity in this assertion is exceeded only in its staggering absurdity.  Different people perform differently on standardized tests because people are, well, different.  I may score high on tests involving history or language, but fear my expertise in higher mathematics is woefully lacking.  The same holds true for those in vocational fields.  An aptitude for auto mechanics doesn’t automatically translate into great skill in dental hygiene, welding, or any other trade.  The facts are simple; talent is not, never has been and never will be “equally distributed among all groups,” as Guinier preposterously claims.

Guinier’s goal is simple and predicable.  Agree with her and all is right with the world; disagree and you are a racist.  The overwhelming bulk of data and research over many years prove the case for standardized testing for college admission, and Guinier turns to racial slander and political intimidation to advance a position that no serious person considers valid.

These tactics are reminiscent of how ideology was enforced in the Soviet Union.  Russians who believed Soviet Communism to be anything other than an ideal social and political construct were deemed insane and exiled to the gulags. Similarly, Guinier seeks to marginalize those who disagree with her bizarre notions of educational excellence with accusations of racism.

The role of testing in college admissions deserves better than the race baiting duplicity we’re seeing from individuals like Guinier and political organizations like Fair Test, which shares Guinier’s desire to abolish standardized testing.  They represent the new radical front in altering higher education in America and should be shunned or we risk the entire disassembly of the concepts of academic merit and excellence.

Just because the race is over doesn’t mean our jobs are finished. Now is the time to take our message of reform, especially the need to return the party to the grassroots, to the new leadership team at party headquarters.

Last week, the 168 members of the Republican National Committee elected Michael Steele as their national chairman. I was proud to be a significant part of that effort, not only by encouraging my supporters to elect him, but also by assuring the members of the RNC, and Republicans following the race nationwide, that Michael Steele is taken seriously by conservatives like us. Governor Ronald Reagan once told his staff, “the person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor.” While Michael Steele and I may differ on our approach to some aspects of conservatism, he is still a strong ally in the fight to defeat Democrats and a supporter of the conservative Republican platform, and I look forward to working with him as we energize, inspire, and expand the base.

This election was a battle to see who can best unite these members – or at least 85 of them – to capture a majority of the votes in the short term. But in the long term, we need a plan that will rebuild the party by articulating conservative principles, inspiring our base, decentralizing authority, and building the technical infrastructure that will unite the millions of Republican voters behind a common goal of a conservative resurgence across the country.

Republican voters have spoken – at the ballot box, with their donations, through grassroots activities, and in online communication. We’ve all heard and echoed their message: let’s get back to basics. Now we have someone on the national stage who can do something about it, including returning party operations to the state and local leadership, dominating technology in order to position us to win, and preparing for our toughest redistricting battle yet. Michael Steele has assured members of the conservative community that we will not only have a voice, but a place at the table as decisions directing the RNC are made. And I don’t know about all of you, but I’m ready to be put back to work.