Sen. Carl Levin is using phony small business advocates to push for double taxation on U.S. businesses that profit overseas. Even the NYT is forced to concede that the activity is “unusual,” but declines to do any serious investigation. The organizations in question all have far left affiliations suggestive of a big government agenda. That much is evident from just cursory glance of web sites…

Small business groups have joined forces with Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) to block offshore tax havens for large companies and wealthy Americans that come at the expense of job producing enterprises, according to The New York Times.  Or have they?

Although Sen. Levin has never been a friend of the free market system in the past, he has suddenly developed a concern for law abiding business owners who lose out when more sizable corporate operations exploit tax shelters, a July report informs readers.

Three non-profit organizations — the American Sustainable Business Council, Business for Shared Prosperity and Wealth for the Common Good — are indentified as the primary authors of a 25 page report that calls out multinational companies for avoiding $37 billion in federal taxes; an estimate that is probably on the low end.

“The campaign is unusual because it is the first time that small businesses have organized to combat offshore tax avoidance and evasion in a significant way,” The Times observes. But instead of investigating the coalition’s self-proclaimed business concerns, the Gray Lady blithely invokes the report’s major recommendations, which are not reflective of free market values.

The operative word here is not “unusual” but duplicitous. All three non-profit groups have tangible links with far left activists who favor greater government control of the private sector, according to new research published by Americans for Limited Government. This places the coalition’s partnership with Sen. Levin into a logical and understandable context that would better serve readers.

Unfortunately, the NYT remains more committed to its big government agenda than it does to straight reporting. Here are some hard facts that should be included in subsequent reports about the coalition and its key players.

Holly Sklar is currently the director of Business for Shared Prosperity. She has served as senior policy adviser for the Let Justice Roll Living Wage Campaign and as an affiliate staff member for Demos, a think tank allied with ACORN and the Institute for Policy Studies. Chuck Collins, who co-founded Wealth for the Common Good has served as an affiliate staffer of Demos and as the Tax Program Director of Business for Shared Prosperity. He is also a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies and directs IPS’s Program on Inequality and the Common Good.

The other lead author here, the American Sustainable Business Council, makes no attempt to camouflage its progressive leanings. Its home page includes a long and copious list of allied organizations that advocate for left wing causes. Key personnel include Atlee McFellin, who works as a strategy consultant. McFellin was previously a member of Students for a Democratic Society and the Radical Student Union.

The website for Business and Investors Against Tax Haven Abuse also opens the way for an informative investigation. It contains a list of 25 businesspersons who signed the petition oppose the use of tax havens. An examination of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) records shows that most of the campaign contributions from these same individuals went to Democratic organizations and liberal activist groups.

Why is this not considered news?

The concluding paragraph from the NYT lists some of the major recommendations included in the report that is aimed against larger companies. They are as follows:

“The report calls for laws that would block transfers of intellectual property designed to evade taxes; ban shell corporations that earn profits offshore, even when a corporation’s management team is based in the United States; repeal a rule that allows American corporations to reduce or eliminate their United States tax bills if 80 percent of their business takes place overseas; and set penalties for government contractors that use tax havens.”

Those are not immodest proposals.

The NYT piece suggests any additional tax revenue collected could be used to boost small business. In reality, the anti-profit, anti-capitalist mentality animating this non-profit coalition suggests otherwise.

Despite his substantial  win over the Republican establishment in the Kentucky primary, U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul operates well outside of the American mainstream and is therefore unelectable, according to the liberal news media. He is also a champion of the Tea Party movement is therefore also a racist, The New York Times informs readers in a front page hit piece that is short on facts and long on unfounded accusations.

Allegations of racism that have been directed against average Americans opposed to unconstitutional federal power grabs have been wearing thin for some time. Nevertheless, The New York Times remains convinced race can be used as a foil against the leading proponents of small government initiatives.

This is evident from a front page hit piece directed against Rand Paul, a Tea Party favorite, who prevailed in Kentucky’s Republican primary with about 60 percent of the vote. Although he would have ultimately voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, certain provisions of the legislation run counter to First Amendment freedoms, he has observed.  Sensing vulnerability, The Times has pounced and is working overtime to put Paul and his libertarian supporters on defense.

Establishment Republicans who lost badly in Kentucky are recruited here as part of an elaborate take down effort that is not likely to abate anytime soon. Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell and other prominent party leaders had supported Secretary  of State Trey Grayson who was overwhelmed by Tea Party activism.

While it’s perfectly appropriate to point out that Rand’s primary victory is a source of consternation for some party officials, no effort is made to balance out the reporting with commentary from Republicans who are more committed to limited government. Outgoing Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY), who has been sharply critical of McConnell’s leadership, has been speaking with the press recently and could have been used as a source to add a fresh perspective.

But the objective here is to close off debate and to delegitimize a candidacy that complicates the big government policy preferences of The Times. Even as the report concedes that Paul came down squarely on the side of 1964 bill, it proceeds to inform readers that he is probably unelectable in the Fall.

“Still, it was not clear that he [Paul] had quelled rising concerns among Republicans about his ability to win in the general election, especially given his libertarian views in favor of limiting the role government,” the report says.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), the No.2 Republican behind McConnell, is quoted here and suggests Paul deals too much in the realm of fanciful theories that would not translate into practical policies. The Time also has it on the strong authority of Democrats that some of Paul’s proposals fall “out-of-the mainstream.” Meanwhile, the Washington D.C spending binge that Paul opposes is somehow mainstream.

The free speech explanation Paul gives for his stance on the civil rights bill is not dissimilar from the rationale the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other liberal pressure groups use to defend the rights of individuals and organizations who express hostility toward America. But somehow they do not wash here.

“While those views reflect the libertarian philosophy that Mr. Paul and many Tea Party members have embraced, they are politically treacherous for someone making an appeal to the electorate at large, as Mr. Paul learned as he struggled with questions about whether he thought the government had a role in regulating food safety and working conditions,” so says The New York Times as it asks loaded questions.

And how is it established that Paul is struggling after capturing a strong majority of his party’s vote?

The report also feigns outrage over Paul’s use of a country club as the location for his election night celebration as opposed to a less ostentatious setting. Clearly, this is someone the newspaper has learned to fear. This much time, effort and ink would not be spent on candidate who was genuinely unelectable.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a long-time Republican media darling for The Times, is called upon to explain his constitutional interpretation of commerce clause as a way of demeaning the Paul candidacy.

“I just want to be on the record that I believe the Interstate Commerce Clause was properly used by the courts and the Congress to make sure that when you travel in this country you can’t be denied food and lodging based on your race,” the South Carolina Republican is quoted as saying.

The Times might have asked Graham how he squares his support for campaign finance regulations with the First Amendment.  But expansive interpretations of constitutional freedoms are only in vogue where it suits the ideology and ambitions of liberal editors.

Just one day after the proponents of big government give final approval to an intrusive, anti-constitutional takeover of healthcare, The New York Times equates the regulatory scheme with civil rights…

Statists and central planners who favor the government takeover of healthcare are the victims of an intense campaign of hatred and intolerance organized by small-minded private citizens, according to the New York Times.

One day after the intrusive regulatory measure won congressional approval it was described as a victory for civil rights and a defeat for hateful Republicans. Leading advocates like Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) were held up as champions of American renewal, while private citizens supporting constitutional limited government were dismissed as unstable, vitriolic loons.

The opening paragraphs cut right to the chase.

“Forty-five years ago, John Lewis began the third of what became society-shifting civil rights marches from Selma to Montgomery, Ala,” the report says. “On Sunday, the anniversary of that famous trek, he joined hands with fellow House Democrats and marched past jeering protesters into the Capitol to remake the nation’s health care system.”

On ene side of the debate are progressives who are bold enough to subjugate constitutional principles, on the other side are villainous Republicans and hysterical, unwashed members of the public.

“Love it or hate it, there was no dispute that the health care overhaul was the most significant and far-reaching piece of domestic policy legislation to come before Congress in years,” the report continued. “Republicans clearly hated it.”

The report concludes by suggesting that final victory for “reform in the House vote completed a long struggle for equality and dignity that began decades ago against the same unsavory elements that showed up in force on Capitol Hill.

The final graphs are as follows:

“Republicans said the protests were simply a reflection of public disgust with both the measure and the procedural hoops Democrats were jumping through to get it to the president’s desk. `The public is on our side,’ said Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, the No. 3 House Republican, standing outside the Capitol as the chants rang around him. `The American people are rising up with one voice and saying enough is enough.’

Mr. Lewis said he was not intimidated as he walked to the Capitol with his colleagues, including Ms. Pelosi. In 1965, Mr. Lewis was bloodied and beaten by the police as he marched for civil rights. `What was so different more than anything else,’ he said of Sunday’s walk, `was we had the protection of the Capitol police.’

Even as the bill subtracts away from individual liberty and creates additional financial burdens on already beleaguered taxpayers it is equated to civil rights. Only The New York Times.

Jason Mattera, a spokesman with Young America’s Foundation, has responded forcefully to a hit piece in the New York Times that accussed him of using racial overtones in his remarks to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). In an email message to TimesCheck, Mattera offers a possible explaination for what is best described as a smear piece…

Be careful with that Brooklyn accent when The New York Times is on the prowl against young Americans who revere the founding period, eschew political correctness and push for first amendment rights on college campuses.

Jason Mattera, the spokesman for Young America’s Foundation (YAF), has been instrumental in advancing the conservative cause on college campuses.  Just a few years ago, Mattera successfully organized a public relations effort aimed against the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul Minnesota, which had blocked a pro-life speaker from appearing.

YAF was not alone in finding it peculiar that no less than a Catholic institution would recoil against a speaker who supports the Catholic position. The administration eventually capitulated thanks in no small part to Mattera’s efforts.

This victory for First Amendment freedoms went uncovered in The Times and other liberal media outlets. But the same paper was not so reticent to turn its ire against Mattera over remarks he made to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington D.C. this past weekend.

Mattera spoke out against the far-left agenda that has been weaved into the curriculum students attending four-year colleges typically endure. He also took on feminists, the Obama Administration and made a pitch to young people. Mattera is the author of an upcoming book entitled: “Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed  My Generation.”

The reporter Kate Zernik accused the YAF activist of invoking racial stereotypes during his presentation. At least she’s not pretending; Zernik launches into her attack in the first paragraph.

“How can conservatives win the youth vote that overwhelmingly went for Barack Obama in 2008? At the Conservative Political Action Conference, apparently, some are betting on using racial stereotypes.”

The central argument here is that Mattera was supposedly channeling the comedian Chris Rock to suggest that all black people speak the same way. The reporter never made any effort to determine if her supposition was rooted in fact and instead printed the accusations.

“Mr. Mattera, also a television correspondent for the Web site HotAir, said that Mr. Obama had created the “right opportunity to capture what is perceived as the left’s stronghold on the youth vote.

Even Obama Girl, he exclaimed, “said her crush has faded!”

He then mocked what he described, with a Chris Rock voice, as `diversity,’ including, he said, college classes on `cyber feminist’ and `what it means to be a feminist new black man.’”

In an exchange with Ed Morrissey of HotAir.com Mattera explains that  he is from Brooklyn and does have a distinct accent that is evident to colleagues and friends. It’s not channeled, it’s part of the Mattera matrix.

“That’s pretty thin gruel, especially if you know Jason,” Morrissey observed in his interview with Mattera. “He’s been calling me his `brothah’ in his pronounced Brooklyn accent since the day I met him.

Mattera suspects that an effort is underway to submarine the content of his book before it is even out in circulation.

“Obama Zombies hasn’t even hit the book shelves and liberals are already in meltdown mode,” told TimesCheck in an email. “They hate that there’s just not a market for their socialist ideas. So enter activist Kate Zernike, who masquerades as a reporter for the New York Times. She stooped so low as to slime and lie about me over the way I talk. I have a special section in Obama Zombies on toolbags like Zernike—reporters who have prostituted their journalism for the cause of liberalism. Unfortunately, many young people are unaware of the activist nature of the news media and therefore have a big, fat zombie target on their foreheads.”

Mattera has asked for a retraction and that the reporter be removed from her position in a recent piece appearing on Andrew Breitbart’s BigJournalism site.

“My alleged “Chris Rock” voice is actually the way I sound every day.  Zernike could have figured this out for herself had she spoken with me in person (trust me, I’ll talk to anyone), or at least she could have taken a minute to pull up one of my YouTube videos. Instead, Zernike, who must consider herself some kind of dialect expert, attempted to tarnish my name and stigmatize CPAC for inciting racial animus towards our President.  All based on… my Brooklyn accent!  You can’t make this stuff up.”

Average citizens who have invoked the proudest traditions of the American Revolution during various Tea Party events have been tied with a long list of unsavory groups and individuals who operate at the fringes of American politics. The stark ideological differences between free market advocates and conspiracy theorists are nowhere acknowledged or reported in what could have been a detailed, even-handed informative article…

There’s a good report on the Tea Party movement struggling to break through some of the snide, superfluous commentary that works its way into reports about beleaguered American taxpayers who have found expression.

Every large-scale movement has disparate forces and peripheral players that are not central to the causes and concerns of most activists. While they deserve some mention, journalists should also maintain a sense of perspective so that readers are properly informed about overall tone and direction of the political forces at work.

Unfortunately, The New York Times sees fit to slight and marginalize the Tea Party movement instead of capturing and reporting on the key ingredients that have fueled average Americans who are becoming active for the first time.

This front page report includes some interesting nuggets and helpful background on the many elements of the Tea-Party movement. The reporter lands several good interviews with key players but inserts incendiary observations that dilute from what could have been an effective piece.

“The Tea Party movement defies easy definition, largely because there is no single Tea Party,” the report says.

So far, so good.

“At the grass-roots level, it consists of hundreds of autonomous Tea Party groups, widely varying in size and priorities, each influenced by the peculiarities of local history. In the inland Northwest, the Tea Party movement has been shaped by the growing popularity in eastern Washington of Ron Paul, the libertarian congressman from Texas, and by a legacy of anti-government activism in northern Idaho.”

Fair enough.

“Outside Sandpoint, federal agents laid siege to Randy Weaver’s compound on Ruby Ridge in 1992, resulting in the deaths of a marshal and Mr. Weaver’s wife and son,” the article continues. “To the south, Richard Butler, leader of the Aryan Nations, preached white separatism from a compound near Coeur d’Alene until he was shut down.”

And how does this relate back to the Tea-Party movement? So the next time a street crime is committed in close proximity to a progressive event, or say it is discovered that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright once sleep at the same hotel that also accommodates Democratic party activists this will somehow be converted into hard news.

There’s more….

“Further complicating matters, Tea Party events have become a magnet for other groups and causes — including gun rights activists, anti-tax crusaders, libertarians, militia organizers, the “birthers” who doubt President Obama’s citizenship, Lyndon LaRouche supporters and proponents of the sovereign states movement,” the report shrieks.

There are no interviews here with LaRouche supporters or “birthers,” which is not to say they did not invite themselves to certain Tea Party events. But is it really accurate to say the movement has become a “magnet” for either group. There’s a definitely a libertarian streak to the Tea Party at all levels in light of the emphasis that has been placed on free market issues and constitutional rights. Activists seem less interested in cultural questions as the movement is mostly concerned with economics.

This is the kind of an analysis that goes missing from the report. Given the left-wing bent of LaRouche’s economic views his supporters would not make for an easy fit with Tea Parties. The reporter also goes through considerable gymnastics to interlink conservative and libertarian activists with conspiracy theories animated by an unreasonable fear of the federal government. Here the reporter confuses distrust with paranoia.

The largely defunct John Birch Society also finds its way into the article as a way of needling Tea Party participants who are quoted including an Arizona sheriff who expresses concern over the scope and reach of the Federal Reserve Board. Unfortunately, he was set up in the following paragraph”

“It is no longer considered all that radical, he said, to portray the Federal Reserve as a plaything of the big banks — a point the Birch Society, among others, has argued for decades.”

There is a legitimate debate raging about the proper role of the Federal Reserve Board that gets into larger questions of financial reform. The Tea Party movement has been a conduit for these concerns but don’t expect them to get a fair hearing in the New York Times.

Corporations are beginning to pull out of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a major driving force behind “cap and trade” proposals. But The New York Times would prefer that readers not become privy to yet another setback for the environmental movement. When USCAP was formed it earned expansive coverage but news of its possible demise only earns a blog post…

Where is the coverage of corporations that have pulled out of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) after lobbying in favor of anti-emissions regulations? The three year old pressure group was heralded and celebrated for its efforts in the New York Times when it first came together. But now that it is contracting, USCAP is suddenly less news worthy.

BP America, Conoco Phillips and Caterpillar have all announced they are pulling out of USCAP, which included a coalition of businesses and green groups that supported “cap and trade” legislation modeled after the Kyoto Protocol. Just a few weeks after the 2008 elections, USCAP representatives appeared at The National Press Club (NPC) to declare their moment had arrived and that Europeanization of the American economy was at hand.

Under cap and trade, electric utilities, manufacturers, and other firms would be limited in the amount of carbon dioxide they could release into the air. Companies that emitted more than their prescribed limit would then have to buy “carbon allowances” in a government-contrived system from companies that had carbon credit. If they pollute beyond their “cap,” these companies  would then have to “trade” for, i.e., buy,  credits in companies that produce more environmentally friendly products.

Anti-emissions regulations were needed despite the recession USCAP members argued as recently as a few months ago because they would discourage the use of carbon-based energy sources in exchange for “green technologies that will create new jobs.”

With election of Barack Obama and large Democratic congressional majorities, green activists and compliant business leaders had good cause to anticipate legislative results.

“We are greatly encouraged by the new leadership coming into office,” Frances Beinecke president of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said at NPC  press conference in 2008. “Since the president-elect has announced his goals, the Democratic leadership will have to respond, and it might be possible to pull over some Republicans.”

David Crane, president and CEO of NRG Energy, a power-generation company based in Princeton, N.J., told NPC audience members that the transition away from a carbon-based economy to one more reliant on clean energy sources is similar in scope to the movement away from the “horse and buggy” to the internal combustion engine.

 Crane, who described himself as a “dyed-in-the-wool free market capitalist,” said a price on carbon is needed so that market forces will respond and embrace alternative technologies.

Oh brother.

The Times and other liberal media organs have ignored economic reports that raise question about the viability of green jobs.

Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in Spain, has produced a recent study that shows green jobs are mostly temporary, heavily subsidized and subtract away from economic performance.  

It also important to note that the announcements from BP America, Conoco Phillips and Caterpillar come on the heels of the “climategate” scandal that has gone a long way toward debunking the research underpinning man-made global warming theories.

Instead of published a thorough and detailed report on the possible demise of USCAP these developments are instead reduced to a blog where corporate leaders who are now backpeddling away from cap and trade are permitted to put their best spin on a dramatic policy reversal.

Global Warming skeptics are beginning to make some headway in self-described mainstream media publications like The New York Times. In the past few years, new studies debunking man-made global warming theories have gained attraction, while questions have been raised about the integrity of a panel that studies climate change. Here, The New York Times makes a concerted effort to insulate and protect the U.N. panel and its chairman…

Scientific skeptics and “right-leaning politicians” are dismissed as being outside of mainstream thought but their arguments are getting harder to ignore as the evidence against man-made global warming theories mounts.

This is the inescapable undertone of New York Times report that gives long-overdue space to questions that have been raised about the integrity of the United Nations (U.N.) climate change and potential financial conflicts involving its chairman.

Scientists who have been critical of research underpinning the idea of man-made global warming should be pleased to see that their views are finally getting some airtime in a newspaper with a long-track record of cheer-leading for alarmism. Unfortunately, the article makes a concerted effort to marginalize and debunk critics.

Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri, the panel chairman, submits to a “lengthy telephone interview” and disputes charges, which he says are “lies and distortions.” But there is very little here in the way of specifics to bolster his defense. Climate skeptics like Lord Christopher Monckton and Dr. Roger Pielke, an environmental science professor, are much more pointed and detailed in their remarks.

Even so, the bias in favor of the U.N. and the concept human-induced warming is very evident in the following  graphs:

“Several of the recent accusations have proved to be half-truths: While Dr. Pachauri does act as a paid consultant and adviser to many companies, he makes no money from these activities, he said. The payments go to the Energy and Resources Institute, the prestigious nonprofit research center based in Delhi that he founded in 1982 and still leads, where the money finances charitable projects like Lighting a Billion Lives, which provides solar lanterns in rural India.”

“The [UN] panel, in reviewing complaints about possible errors in its report, has so far found that one was justified and another was `baseless.’ The general consensus among mainstream scientists is that the errors are in any case minor and do not undermine the report’s conclusions.”

Notice that the NYC still insists on using terms like “mainstream scientists” to distinguish between alarmists and skeptics.  But many scientists have raised objections where the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is concerned, including several who were previously associated with the project.

The  IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers, roughly 20 pages long, is primarily the work of political appointees, not of scientists, according to Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric science at MIT has observed. It is designed to impact policy and is often detached from what the body of the report actually concludes, Lindzen and others have revealed.

Meanwhile, U.N. appointed officials who have had a hand in crafting the panel’s major studies have acknowledged in response to slew of reports that significant mistakes have been made.

Meanwhile, the Times appears to be frustrated with other newspaper reports on the IPCC and is quick to fix a label on those same publications.

“The accusations of errors in the panel’s report — most originating from two right-leaning British papers, The Sunday Telegraph and The Times of London — have sullied the group’s reputation. They follow a controversy that erupted late last year over e-mail messages and documents released without authorization from a climate research center in Britain.”

In a way this report is a sign of progress because it does highlight concerns scientists and policy experts have about the U.N. panel. The bias is still here but alternative views are finding expression.

When you elevate political correctness and social engineering above military readiness you earn a big spread in The New York Times, which is quick to extol enlightened views divorced from U.S. interests.

There was no “epiphany” one advisor to Admiral Mike Mullen is quoted as saying in Thursday’s paper. There was instead a gradual process of enlightenment at work that brought the admiral into closer concert with the permissive views of the New York Times.

A day after the admiral testified before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee about his support for allowing gays to serve openly in the U.S. military he was exalted in a lengthy piece that takes an uncritical look at the merits of ending the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell ban.”  The newspaper continues to repeat the canard that Mullen’s statements reflect larger societal trends without citing any evidence.

“Friends acknowledge that Admiral Mullen, for all the praise he has received in many quarters for taking a stand Tuesday, was reflecting the broad shifts in society  – and to some degree within the U.S. military itself – since 1993,” the report says.

Mullen is lauded for his ability to cultivate Washington D.C. relations beyond orbit of the U.S. military. Apparently, his stature is rising in the Obama Administration, which places a premium on military figures who favor radical social changes that do not square with the idea of maintaining cohesive, effective military units. The following paragraphs tell the story about Mullen’s improved station.

“Appointed chief of the Joint Staff by Mr. Gates in 2007, Admiral Mullen was overshadowed at the time by Gen. David H. Petraeus, who had built a close relationship with President George W. Bush and became the face of the troop surge in Iraq.

But Admiral Mullen, who initially opposed the Iraq surge, has risen in visibility and stature under the Obama administration. He was reappointed to a second two-year term last year by Mr. Gates, and friends say that the admiral’s worldview — widely described as non-ideological — was always more in sync with the current president than the previous one.

Mr. Obama, who has made clear that he has no patience for superstar generals, met with Admiral Mullen within days of his 2008 election victory, long before he opened his door to General Petraeus.”

So Mullen is non-ideological, yet very much in step with the radical social changes that President Obama is working to force on the U.S. military. Elaine Donnelly, president of Center for Military Readiness, very effectively explains what is at stake in a detailed post available on National Review Online.

The nation at large is not clamoring for a repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy now in place, contrary to what has been widely reported, as Donnelly explains.

“H.R. 1283, co-sponsored by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D., Pa.) and more than 180 others, would forbid discrimination based on “homosexuality or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived.” If passed, the LGBT Law would be retroactive — allowing re-entry and restored promotions for anyone previously discharged. It would apply to all units, including infantry battalions, Special Operations Forces, Navy SEALS, and submarines, on a 24/7 basis.

Contrary to the president’s statement, there is no national desire to “finally” repeal the 1993 law (Section 654, Title 10). The statute, which is always mislabeled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” states that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military. Only the well-funded LGBT Left is pushing this issue, and they expect a political payoff regardless of the consequences.”

In an interview with Gen. Anthony Zinni, a retired marine, who knows Admiral Mullen, The Times does report on what should be some obvious challenges associated with the proposed changes. Here are some of the questions Zinni said were raised in the discussions Mullen had with his commanders.

“How are we going to handle a gay member who is married in one state but is stationed in another that doesn’t approve of gay marriage? How are we going to handle troops who are uncomfortable around gay members? Are we going to force people to accept openly gay roommates? What about people who want to leave the service because of it?”

Apparently, corporate America is to blame for the widespread suffering and acute poverty in Haiti that has only intensified in the aftermath of a major earthquake. This is the central message of The New York Times hit piece on the Rawlings Sporting Goods company that left the island about 20 years ago; external factors unrelated to Haiti’s government are the culprit here, according to the article.

Baseballs are very specialized products that require a highly trained work force. If Rawlings had its druthers, it would have preferred to keep an already well-trained trained workforce in place, equipped to handle a unique product. Yet, the company felt compelled to uproot itself thanks to government corruption, mismanagement and poor public policy decisions.

The Haitian government imposed severe regulations and restrictions that made for an untenable business climate, but this story is untold.

Rawlings now has a moral obligation to re-invest in Haiti because the company was profitable there at one time, even though it has no ownership over any of the policy decisions made in the past two decades. This argument is made by a book author quoted in the story who has studied assistance programs to Haiti.

“Do they have an obligation?” Josh DeWind, a co-author of “Aiding Migration: The Impact of International Development Assistance on Haiti,” said Tuesday in a telephone interview, referring to Rawlings. “I suppose they did quite well in Haiti, so, yes, in a humanitarian sense, it would be morally right to go back and help out, given that they benefited from Haiti.”

There’s also a sop to organized labor.

“He [DeWind] added that the despot Jean-Claude Duvalier helped foster the low-cost business environment “by making sure there were no independent unions.”

There’s no talk about The New York Times re-locating any of its facilities down to Haiti. Even this article concedes that aside from the public relations appeal it makes little business sense to make massive investments in Haiti just now.

“Companies willing to invest there know it will take substantial time to rebuild the infrastructure, institutions and housing needed to make major investments pay off in a country plagued by extreme poverty and sky-high unemployment,” The Times acknowledges.

The message should be “Haiti Heal Thyself,” but it’s just easier to bash corporate America.

Rawlings has been operating in Costa Rica since about 1988 in response the political unrest that accelerated throughout Haiti in the late 1980s and accelerated into the 1990s. This write-up is reflective of the long-standing antipathy The New York Times has toward business owners who are understandably reticent to operate in a climate where the rule of law is not observed.