Independent Women's Forum - Michelle D. Bernard

FOX's America's Newsroom: Teachers Unions Exposed

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:27:00 EDT

IWF President and CEO Michelle D. Bernard joined FOX Newsroom to discuss the campaign against teachers unions launched by Center for Union Facts (CUF).

PBS' To the Contrary: Various Topics

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:34:00 EST

IWF President and CEO Michelle D. Bernard on PBS' To the Contrary.

Topics include:

Americans leaving organized religion;
Did the media's gender bias doom the Clinton campaign?; and,
A new book by Dee Dee Myers, Why Women Should Rule the World.

Measurable Progress

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:53:00 EST

Washington Times

In the mid-1960s, inner cities around the country exploded in violence. Americans were shocked and scared. In 1968, the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders issued the Kerner Commission Report, which ominously warned that America was "moving toward two societies, one black, one white - separate and unequal." We have come far since then, but still have far to go. Our goal must remain to be one nation with equal opportunity for all. That objective is achievable, but requires more hard work by all of us.

Forty years ago, the civil-rights movement was struggling against institutionalized discrimination throughout the South. Lynchings, white-only restrooms, segregated schools and lunch counters were a plague upon the nation. Crime, drug abuse, illegitimacy and dependency were spreading throughout black neighborhoods. Poverty was the inner-city norm, with declining hope for the future.

Since that time, in some areas we have come far. In others, our progress has been disappointing. We have learned to live and work together. As the recent Iowa Democratic caucus demonstrated, Americans increasingly look past color. Racism still exists, but no longer can be considered the primary cause of many serious problems facing the African-American community.

Black Americans are making important economic gains. A vibrant professional and entrepreneurial class helps lead all of the cities that once suffered urban unrest. Middle- and upper-income African-Americans have moved out of the inner-city into suburbs across the nation. Blacks have taken an even greater leadership role in politics. Forty years ago African-Americans had to fight to exercise the right to vote. Today, the Democratic frontrunner for president is a black man. America's 65th secretary of state was an African American man, and the 66th secretary of state is an African American woman. Blacks now routinely serve in Congress and the cabinet, on the U.S. Supreme Court and Joint Chiefs of Staff, and as governors and mayors across the country. While we once would have been surprised to see a black face at an important political gathering, we now are surprised if there isn't one.

We should be proud of our progress. As columnist Eugene Robinson observed: "This successful black America gets very little coverage, for the obvious reason that good news isn't really news in the traditional sense."

Nevertheless, there is much more to do. Residential segregation remains distressingly common. In many areas it still looks like there are two Americas. Moreover, the dramatic economic improvement for many blacks cannot hide the persistence of poverty in what we once called "the ghetto." Illegitimacy rates for young girls and incarceration rates for young men have hit staggering levels. Our public education system continues to fail children throughout the nation. Too many African American kids determined to succeed find themselves ill-prepared for the competition in top universities and an increasingly globalized workplace.

There's no simple answer.

The Kerner Commission recommended new welfare programs, and the federal government has spent more to fight poverty than it spent to win World War II. Unfortunately, bigger social programs backfired, encouraging family and community break-up, discouraging education and employment, and creating pervasive dependency. We know more government social engineering will not work.

The 1996 welfare reform, agreed to by a Republican Congress and Democratic president, freed many of the nation's poor from the fetters of dependency and encourages self-sufficiency. Today, we must improve education and generate economic opportunity for those still stuck in poverty. To do so we must empower people rather than bureaucracies. For instance, pouring more money into failing public schools won't improve student achievement. Giving parents improved options and forcing public institutions to compete will help kids learn. Poor people are poor, not stupid, which is why so many black Baptists work so hard to place their children in parochial schools.

Similarly, policies like the minimum wage may sound "progressive," but actually destroy jobs. We need to clear away regulations that make it hard to start a small business and enter a profession. Entrepreneurs, not politicians, create real jobs with the potential for advancement.

Although people are focused on the subprime lending crisis, and its negative impact on minority homeownership, building codes, rent controls and zoning restrictions do far more to limit good housing. Better policing is also necessary to provide safe neighborhoods for poor as well as rich.

Forty years ago the Kerner Commission provided us with an important warning. However, unlike the conventional wisdom of the 1960s, what we know today is that blacks haven't been so crippled by past discrimination that we cannot compete with whites. We can, and will continue to do so, if government will let us.

Michelle D. Bernard is president and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum and author of "Women's Progress: How Women and Are Wealthier, Healthier and More Independent Than Ever Before."

NPR's News & Notes: Potomac Primary Results

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:45:00 EST

From NPR.org:

News & Notes , February 13, 2008 · We take a look at the issues behind yesterday's primary results with Michelle Bernard - head of the Independent Women's Forum, a conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. - and Todd Shaw, an assistant professor of political science and African-American studies at the University of South Carolina.

Independent Women's Voice (IWV) MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews: GOP Presidential Debate

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:15:00 EST

Michelle D. Bernard President and CEO of Independent Women's Voice (IWV) discusses the GOP Presidential Debate held in Florida.

The Path to Democracy and Stability in Pakistan

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:57:00 EST

Townhall.com

Who are we fighting in this War on Terror? For many Americans, the War on Terror remains a confusing concept. We are used to wars against countries, not against a group of people brought together by an ideology and hatred of the West. Our enemy is most easily defined by their acts: the attacks of September 11th exemplify the threat they pose. Now, with news that the CIA has concluded that members of al-Qaeda, in concert with allies of Baitullah Mehud, a Pakistani tribal leader, were responsible for the murder Benazir Bhutto, we are reminded that this War on Terror isn't just about the safety of the United States, but the fate of the world.

Another foreign nation is in crisis. Americans should appreciate yet again how fortunate we are to live in a country that is both free and stable. We do not worry about one killer turning our political system upside down.

The contrast today with Pakistan could not be greater. The murder of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was a tragedy on many levels. Her family has lost a wife and mother. Her party has lost its soul and inspiration. Her country has lost an intelligent, courageous woman prepared to lead in difficult times. The rest of us have lost one of the world's leading female politicians-living proof that a woman can run the government of an Islamic nation. Bhutto could have helped turn Pakistanis and Muslims elsewhere away from the failed politics of extremism and terrorism and towards the positive approach of global engagement and leadership.

Bhutto's death was a blow against people of goodwill all over the world. But we must not grow discouraged. To the contrary, the U.S. and its allies must redouble their efforts in the War on Terror and aid Pakistanis as they attempt to advance democracy in their nation.

All people are entitled to self-government. Throughout history, all people have sought self-government. Unfortunately, however, not all people are ready to build stable and free political systems. This is the ugly truth that we have learned in the Middle East. Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, and other Muslim states have suffered under autocracy. All have taken some moves toward democracy but still face enormous barriers to the practice of liberal democracy in their nations.

For democracy to work, government must be built on respect for the life and dignity of its citizens. People must be willing to work peacefully with other groups and accept defeat in elections. Private mediating institutions are necessary to link individuals and families to communities and the nation.

Washington has long worked with various governments in Islamabad. Since September 11th, the U.S. has provided the Musharraf regime with some $10 billion. For that money, America has won at times reluctant cooperation in the fight against both the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Unfortunately, all of Pakistan has not been fully in the fight.

Many residents of the provinces bordering Afghanistan have welcomed America's enemies as guests. The Pakistani military has been unable--or unwilling--to clear out these safe havens. Even many secular Pakistanis are hostile to America, which they blame for supporting military dictatorships at home. Thus, we should consider a new strategy in Pakistan.

It is critical to win the allegiance of the Pakistani people. The U.S. government must be more careful to ensure that the Pakistani people understand that it supports them, and not any particular government or politician. America cannot dictate the form of Pakistan's government or the speed with which it returns to democracy, but Washington should unequivocally support the right of the Pakistani people to choose their own leaders.

We also must ensure that our aid actually goes to help people in need. Military assistance will remain vital so long as the Taliban and al-Qaeda remain threats, but the U.S.-Pakistan relationship must not focus on security alone. Non-governmental organizations, including those which promote the full economic, political, and social advancement of Pakistani women, should take on a greater role, bypassing the Pakistani government and establishing a direct relationship with community and tribal leaders. As some Middle Eastern suffragettes have remarked, half a democracy is not a democracy. Finally, Washington must demonstrate that it has learned humility and is willing to listen to the Pakistani people even as it encourages them to remain on a democratic path.

Benazir Bhutto won renown as one of the world's most noted female politicians. But, more important, she earned respect as one of her nation's most important leaders, irrespective of sex. The best way to honor her legacy and advance our interests in this War on Terror is for the American people to become true partners of the Pakistani people in order to encourage both democracy and prosperity in their nation. This approach will make us more secure. This commitment also represents America at its generous and democratic best.

Michelle D. Bernard, a lawyer by training, is the president and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum and author of the soon to be released Women's Progress, How Women are Wealthier, Healthier, and More Independent Than Ever Before.

If I were running for president, this is what I would say

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:46:00 EST

Nashua Telegraph

If I were running for president, one of the many questions I would ask is, "What do women want?"

Women, after all, are the majority of voters in the United States.

The answer is quite simple: Women want policies that improve the lives of our families and increase the safety of our nation. Women want an America that is, as Abraham Lincoln stated, "the last, best hope of Earth."

Earlier this month, women from around the country met in Manchester to participate in Lifetime Television's "If I Were President" Forum. This nonpartisan coalition of women sought answers from the candidates about how they would handle many of the domestic and foreign-policy issues of particular concern to women.

Candidates who listen to women find that women aren't that different than men: Women want policies that generate the stability and security necessary for women to successfully balance family and professional life.

Women want a prosperous economy with low interest rates and stable prices. Jimmy Carter's era of "stagflation" demonstrated how important it is to get the essentials right. That means not letting the subprime loan mess turn into an excuse for government to wreck the credit market, and promoting a marketplace that rewards entrepreneurship and hard work.

A big tax hike would strike hardest at businesswomen, particularly those starting their own businesses. The burden of federal regulation remains far too high - at more than $1 trillion, it exceeds the total amount collected in federal income taxes.

The looming insolvency of Medicare and Social Security also concerns women, especially those who rely on these programs. These programs' $90 trillion unfunded liabilities will eventually have to be paid if we are to keep faith with our elderly. We need reform now to protect those currently collecting benefits while providing better options for younger workers.

Health care is also a critical issue for women. The U.S. medical system offers unparalleled quality, but leaves some people behind. Women want a system that builds on the strengths of American medicine, emphasizing the role of patients as consumers. Women want an end to the bias for employer-provided health insurance, which hurts women who are more likely to move in and out of the workforce and don't want to risk losing insurance or changing doctors with each job change.

Women care deeply about education. We want our daughters and sons to be taught to be good citizens. We also want our children prepared to succeed in an increasingly global economy.

Real reform requires more than throwing money at poorly performing schools. Real reform is holding schools accountable for their performance. Real reform is ending the public school monopoly and giving parents a genuine choice as to where their children attend school.

Although women are thought to be more interested than men about the home front, it is for this reason that national security is also a women's issue. Any woman who grieved after Sept. 11, 2001, or who watched 186 children killed at the Beslan school siege in Russia cares not only about domestic policy, but about national security and terrorism.

Yes, we want our husbands, sons and daughters home from Iraq. But we also want a peaceful, democratic Iraq that improves the lives of the Iraqi people and the security of the American people. We want responsible leaders to balance the freedoms that make America great with the policies necessary to prevent new attacks on the United States.

Women insist on policies to deal with a potentially dangerous world. Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. Russia is growing more antagonistic. The brightest hope for democracy in Pakistan has been assassinated. Women don't want war, but we do want to be ready if conflict is forced upon us.

There is one other issue. Elections in America always have been competitive; campaigning always has been vigorous. But women, again like most Americans, are tired of the vicious bickering in Washington that makes it harder to meet the serious challenges facing our nation.

Throughout our history, we Americans have consistently overcome obstacles in our way and surprised our enemies. We will continue to do so. But first, we need to remember that we are Americans before we are Republicans or Democrats.

If I were running for president, I would recognize that women want what all Americans want: a better life for ourselves and our countrymen.

Michelle D. Bernard is the president and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum and author of "Women's Progress: How Women and Are Wealthier, Healthier, and More Independent Than Ever Before."

Black Enterprise: Our World with Black Enterprise

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 11:49:00 EST

IWF President and CEO Michelle D. Bernard joins Ed Gordon on Our World with Black Enterprise for a roundtable discussion including such topics as Barack Obama, the woman's vote, the African American vote, and new African American leadership.

Leading the Majority: Martin Luther King Jr.

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:25:00 EST

IWF President and CEO Michelle D. Bernard joins RightTalk radio as a guest on Leading the Majority discussing Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday and the importance of King's work.

FOX's The O'Reilly Factor: Media coverage on Obama

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:33:00 EST

...

CNN Newsroom: America Votes 2008

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:07:00 EST

IWF President & CEO, Michelle D. Bernard discusses and gives reaction to Tuesday's New Hampshire primary.

PBS' To the Contrary: Iowa caucus, women business owners, and sex-segregated sports

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:04:00 EST

...

A Free Trade Agenda for American Women

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 08:29:00 EST

Originally published by The Examiner on December 28, 2007.

"Three centuries ago Thomas Hobbes proclaimed life ‘nasty, brutish and short.' Today, we have Lou Dobbs presenting life as unfair, isolationist and doomed. For people who subscribe to this view, all the ills of protectionism can be cured with more protectionism" said U.S. Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab at an event held by the Independent Women's Forum.

Surveying the challenges the U.S. faces in our increasingly global economy, Ambassador Schwab offered a simple, persuasive prescription: We must "engage and not retreat." We must "seize opportunities to open markets to U.S. goods and services as we stay open to the products of other countries."

Americans always have been a trading people. The early colonists vigorously resisted British import duties. The United States has long led the world in promoting free trade, and U.S. products and services (many of which are provided by women-owned and operated businesses) now dominate the globe. Unfortunately, the bipartisan consensus in favor of an open international economy is breaking down.

Despite fears of lost jobs due to globalization, America employs 16.5 million more people today than a decade ago. Europe has barely treaded water while America has sped ahead.

True, the U.S. has fewer manufacturing jobs - because these industries are more productive and produce more with less. While 3.3 million manufacturing jobs have disappeared over the last 10 years, our nation has enjoyed a net gain of 11.6 million jobs in higher-wage industries. Dan Griswold of the Cato Institute reports that real compensation for American workers is up 22 percent since 1997.

Although the U.S. is the world's economic powerhouse, 96 percent of the world's consumers live outside our borders. Selling to them creates at least 12 million jobs in America today. As they grow wealthier, these billions will have even more money to spend on U.S. goods and services.

An open economy is particularly important for women, who continue to increase their role as business executives and entrepreneurs. A policy of free trade spreads that openness to other lands. Because of numerous bilateral free trade pacts and decades of increasing liberalization abroad, American women enjoy far greater economic opportunities today than even a few years ago.

Yet all of these advantages are at risk today. Interest groups and politicians are undermining America's traditional free trade agenda, treating the international economy as a threat.

First, multilateral negotiations, termed the "Doha round," have stalled over issues such as farm subsidies. Although Europe is the biggest stumbling block, the U.S., too, has sacrificed the interests of consumers to maintain outmoded farm export subsidies. An increasing number of Republicans embrace a protectionist agenda, while the new Democratic majority is even more hostile to free trade. While Congress passed the Peru Trade Promotion Agreement, it has failed to renew the president's "fast-track" authority to negotiate free trade agreements (FTAs), with Congress providing an up or down vote to approve any deal.

Previously negotiated FTAs with Columbia, Panama and South Korea remain stalled on Capitol Hill. All of these agreements offer the U.S. political as well as economic benefits.

American economic predominance cannot be taken for granted. U.S. economic success is threatened not only by a turn away from economic engagement, but also by legislators who are failing to push the domestic reforms necessary to maintain America's competitive advantage abroad.

Corporate taxes are too high. Burdensome federal regulations plague U.S. companies. The public schools fail to prepare many students for a career in a high-tech, global economy. Our health and retirement systems are a costly mess.

America's women need what America needs, an administration and Congress committed to working together to ensure that the U.S. remains second to none economically. Free trade must again be a priority. Congress should reauthorize presidential fast-track authority and ratify the three pending FTAs. Then, the president should negotiate FTAs with other interested nations.

The administration should attempt to restart the Doha negotiations by exhibiting greater flexibility in reforming our agriculture policy. Washington also should accelerate discussions with Europe over economic harmonization. The global community will benefit from removing unnecessary barriers to trade and investment.

Finally, Congress and the president should pursue a concerted policy to further free up the U.S. economy, including lower capital gains and corporate taxes that match economic competitors, and more sophisticated, less costly regulation.

America became a global leader by embracing economic liberty at home and abroad. The American public would be wise to remember that legacy when voting next year.

Michelle D. Bernard is the president and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum and author of "Women's Progress: How Women and Are Wealthier, Healthier and More Independent Than Ever Before"

New York Post: Writing Her Off

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:48:00 EST

New York Post

December 16, 2007 -- At an address before the Independent Women's Forum in 2006, Condoleezza Rice made a spine-tingling statement: "[T]he fact is that our Founding Fathers, trying to create a perfect union of ‘We the People,' couldn't quite find a way to deal with slavery. So instead, they left my ancestors to be three-fifths of a man. But some hundred plus years later, I stand before you as a descendant of those people who were three-fifths of a man and I ask, ‘Would anybody have thought it possible?' "
As the first black female Secretary of State, Rice should by rights be a heroine to establishment journalists such as New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller, author of "Condoleezza Rice: An American Life." But it doesn't quite work that way.

Throughout her life and throughout this book, there are those who question Rice's "blackness," her pro-women bona fides and her gradual move from the Democratic to Republican Party; many refuse to recognize the reasons for the idealism of her outlook.

The portions of the book that discuss Rice's family background, early childhood and early career path are the most fascinating. Rice's grandfather, Albert Robinson Ray III, more likely than not worked as a laborer in Alabama's cotton fields. According to family legend, in 1904, a white man assaulted Ray's sister. Albert risked being lynched and avenged the attack. Four years later, he moved to Birmingham and married Mattie Lula Parham, a classically trained pianist. They had five children, all of whom graduated from historically black colleges in the South. One of their children, Angelena, Rice's beloved mother, was a refined, proud teacher.

Early in his life, Rice's father, John Wesley Rice, Jr., was a part-time minister, taught gym, and was head basketball coach at a local high school. The son of a former slave who could read and write, John preached at Westminster Presbyterian Church in Birmingham. After working on a master's degree in student personnel administration, he accepted a position as assistant director of admissions at the University of Denver where he focused on recruiting minority students.

By age three, through the sheer will of her parents, Rice had learned how to read and she gave her first piano recital at age four. At five, her mother tried to enroll her in first grade, presumably because the young Condoleezza did not need to bother with kindergarten. When the school disagreed, she took a year off from work and home schooled her daughter.

Bumiller tries to suggest some of the challenges that led Rice to become the most powerful women in the world. So we are told about a school guidance counselor who steered the very talented young woman toward junior college despite her grades and musical talent; we learn that her father registered as Republican because Democrats would not allow him to vote, imposing poll tests that no one could possibly pass (i.e., "How many jelly beans are in that jar?"), and we are told that her father favored Catholic schools over public schools for his daughter because the Catholic schools were "very rigorous, very traditional, lots of languages, Latin, lots of mathematics." Bumiller also tells us about how young Condoleezza had a college professor who spoke positively about a physicist who was promoting a theory that blacks were intellectually inferior to whites; and we see her as the only black member of a presidential delegation waiting to see President Gorbachev off at San Francisco International Airport (the Secret Service ordered Rice to leave the tarmac and stay behind the security gate).

Bumiller conducted numerous interviews, and the book has some fascinating moments, but she misses the mark in trying to capture Rice's wonderful story of American achievement. Indeed, many of those interviewed do not believe that Rice authentically represents the American dream, and they are seemingly incapable of understanding what fuels Rice's self-made potpourri of idealism, pragmatism and determination to succeed. I couldn't help wondering whether veteran members of the feminist movement and self-described progressives can be fair to a woman whose political views do not match their own.

Bumiller and many of those she quotes in her book are unable to fairly consider a black woman who embraces individual liberty, personal responsibility, limited government and the free market. She mistakenly concludes that Rice's "real ideology was not idealism or realism," but "succeeding." In analyzing Rice's evolution from concert pianist to political scientist, Democrat to Republican and political realist to idealist, Bumiller concludes that "shedding so many skins raises the question of what she really stands for . . . she is a pragmatist who for four overwhelming years got swept away by her devotion to the president." Isn't it possible that Rice has simply evolved rather than "reinvented" herself as Bumiller suggests?

One black Birmingham civil rights activist says that despite spending her early childhood in Birmingham and losing one of her friends in the 1963 bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church, "[M]ost black people understand that Condoleezza Rice's politics and our politics are not the same. I'm not sure she ever had the real black experience, I'm not sure of that at all."

In a 2006 address, Rice spoke of the "unfolding of moral progress," "optimism" and a "sense of historical perspective." She told the audience that she believed that "with enough moral courage, with enough optimism and with enough human agency . . . there will come a day when we will look back on Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan and the troubled spots of the world, and we will ask, "Who could have ever doubted that liberal democracy would take hold there?" Given all that has happened in her life and the lives of her forbearers, isn't it possible that this is her real ideology?

Michelle D. Bernard is president and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum.

Condoleezza Rice: An American Life

by Elizabeth Bumiller

Random House

Summer Newsletter 2006

CNN's The Situation Room:Don Imus' return to the airwaves

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:26:00 EST

...

PBS' To the Contrary: Campaign fundraising, First Lady Laura Bush, and more.

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:58:00 EST

...

Remarks of Michelle D. Bernard as Prepared for Delivery

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:25:00 EDT

View photos from Woman of Valor 2007 here.

Remarks of Michelle D. Bernard

Prepared for Delivery

at the

Independent Women's Forum's

Fourth Barbara K. Olson Woman of Valor Award Dinner

October 9, 2007

Distinguished and honored guests and members of the Board of Directors of the Independent Women's Forum, good evening, and welcome to our fourth Woman of Valor Award Dinner.

For those of you who have been here before, welcome home. For those of you who are joining us for the first time, we welcome you to our family - and we are truly a family.

I would like to take a moment to recognize publicly our dinner Chairs, Ambassador Jeanne Johnson Phillips and Ambassador Bonnie McElveen-Hunter. Thank you so much for your help in making tonight such a beautiful evening.

I would also like to recognize and thank the members of our honorary host committee and a few of our very special guests:

•· Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn

• Secretary Michael Chertoff

• The Honorable Cari Dominguez

• The Honorable Naomi Earp

• The Honorable Phillip English

• The Honorable Kay Granger

• The Honorable Michael McCaul

• The Honorable Jean Schmidt

• The Honorable Connie Morella

Finally, we would like to recognize Justice Clarence Thomas. Later this evening, you will hear more about the very special friendship between Ricky, Judge Silberman, and Justice Thomas, and the Justice's unintentional role in the formation of IWF fifteen years ago.

Justice Thomas, we thank you for joining us this evening.

Each year, we come together to honor a woman of valor. This year, we honor two women: Ambassador Nancy Brinker, and IWF's beloved Ricky Silberman.

Prior to January 1, 2006, there were only three women with whom I spoke every day - my mother and my two sisters. That all changed when I became president of IWF in 2006. That year, I inherited a second mother, Ricky Silberman, also known as IWF's "Mother Superior."

Ricky and I spoke just about every day. She would call to ask me if I had found a new nanny yet. She would call just to ask how my husband was doing. Once, she even called to tell me that she thought my childbearing years were behind me! Ricky was a trip!

A year ago, the night before our last Woman of Valor Award Dinner, Ambassador Jeanne Johnson Phillips, Ricky Silberman and I were having dinner at the Willard Hotel. We were drinking fine wine, enjoying the very elegant décor, and speaking about an extraordinary woman - Nancy Brinker. At dinner, Ricky spoke with great admiration for Ambassador Brinker, telling us that she herself was alive because of Nancy Brinker. None of us ever imagined that just nine months later, Ricky would no longer be with us.

In thinking about our 2007 Woman of Valor Award, we knew that we had to honor both of these women, who have spent their lives supporting individual freedom and achieving women's liberty at home and abroad.

This week's Time magazine asks why breast cancer is spreading around the world. At the Independent Women's Forum, we are not only asking this question; we are asking what we can do to stop it from killing so many women and men every year.

This year, the IWF family lost two women to breast cancer, and a member of our staff was diagnosed with the breast cancer just a week ago. Last Saturday, Congresswoman Joanne Davis lost a two-year battle with breast cancer. Tonight, we pay tribute to all each of these women, and we thank you and the members of our honorary host committee for joining us. In doing so, you help bring national awareness to the fight against breast cancer.

At the Independent Women's Forum, one of the many reasons we love Nancy Brinker is because she is no shrinking violet. Recently, the New York Times quoted her as saying, "As the American public and both political parties did when launching the war on cancer more than three decades ago, we need to summon the will to make cancer a national priority again." We couldn't agree more.

Finally, as president of the Independent Women's Forum, I want to express my sincere thanks to each of you for the roles you continue to play in assisting IWF in advancing economic liberty, personal responsibility, and political and economic freedom.

To the Silberman and Brinker families, we thank you for sharing these extraordinary women with us. The world is a better place because of them.

PBS' To the Contrary: Gun control and the 2008 elections; Educational baby toys; Don Imus' return

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:38:00 EDT

...

PBS' To the Contrary: Senator Hillary Clinton and the white male vote; Will the Christian right will support the GOP or an independent candidate; and more.

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 12:16:00 EDT

...

Killing Time in the Battle against Breast Cancer

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:32:00 EDT

Originally published on Townhall.com

Breast cancer is a weapon of mass destruction.

Anyone involved in the battle to find a cure recognizes the importance of increasing awareness and of early detection. However, what is missing from this formula is the effect of early detection and survival rates when there is a delay in detection and diagnosis of breast cancer through no fault of a patient.

As we continue to wage a battle against breast cancer, the following changes need to become a national priority: Minimizing the time it takes to get an appointment with a specialist after one finds a lump in their breast; minimizing the time it takes for a patient to get an appointment for a mammogram; minimizing the time it takes a patient who has been told they have a "suspicious" mammogram to get an appointment to see a breast specialist; and vastly improving the quality of care received by patients while they await diagnosis. Too often, the healthcare provided to patients during these periods of tremendous anxiety is unacceptable.

Today marks the first day of National Breast Cancer awareness month. We at the Independent Women's Forum, recognize this month by remembering the two women in our IWF family who lost their lives to breast cancer this year, by holding the hand of another who is just beginning her battle today, and by praying for yet another who will undergo a breast biopsy later this week --- several weeks after being told she had a suspicious mammogram.

Our own anecdotal evidence demonstrates that too often, when one complains of breast pain, they are told they have a cyst and are advised to "just watch it for a few months"-and valuable time is lost before the cancer is diagnosed. We know that after finding a lump in one's breast, it can take anywhere from 2 to 6 weeks to get a screening test. We know it can take several more weeks just to get an appointment for a consultation with a breast surgeon. And weeks more for a breast biopsy, and even another to get the biopsy results.

The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2007 alone, 178,480 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed in women and approximately 2,030 cases will be found in men. An estimated 40,460 women and 450 men will die from breast cancer. Until a cure for cancer is found, the most effective way to save lives is through early detection and diagnosis. Imagine how many lives are lost by a 2-6 week delay in getting an appointment for a screening test or a breast biopsy?

On October 9, the Independent Women's Forum will honor two extraordinary women by bestowing our fourth annual Woman of Valor Award to Nancy Brinker, founder of Susan G. Komen for the Cure and the Komen Race for the Cure and R. Gaull Silberman, a founder of IWF who lost her life to breast cancer this year. We honor these women because of their commitment to the human spirit and their courageous battle against breast cancer.

In 1978, Nancy Brinker promised her sister, Susan G. Komen, that she would do everything in her power to end breast cancer forever. Suzy, her only sister, had been diagnosed with Stage IV breast cancer when she was only 33 years old. Brinker remembers how her sister was told by one surgeon that she had been cured after undergoing a subcutaneous mastectomy. Six months later she found out that the cancer had metastasized. Ultimately, her sister lost her life to breast cancer. The lesson to be learned is that a delay of any sort, can kill you.

The IWF family is grateful to Nancy Brinker for the promise she made to her sister. Under her leadership, Komen for the Cure has invested nearly $1 billion in the fight against breast cancer. Also, we are particularly indebted to Drs. LaSalle D. Leffall, Jr., and Wayne Frederick at Howard University Hospital, Dr. Robynne Chutkan at Georgetown University Hospital, and many others for their caring nature and prompt screening, diagnosis, and treatment of those we love and have loved.

Recently, Nancy Brinker said that "As the American public and both political parties did when launching the war on cancer more than three decades ago, we need to summon the will to make cancer a national priority again." We couldn't agree more.

MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews: GOP's no-show at Tavis Smiley's Presidential Debate

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:42:00 EDT

Michelle joins Hardball with Chris Matthews to discuss the presidential forum with Tavis Smiley and why she believes it is a mistake for the GOP presidential candidates to refuse to debate in front of an African-American audience.

Morgan State Mistake

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:59:00 EDT

Originally published on National Review

If I were a Republican candidate running for president, I would be focused on expanding the base. I would think about what it means to be the party of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. I would engage black voters of all political stripes in a dialogue about why the party's belief in individual liberty, personal responsibility, and free markets is the solution to many of the problems black Americans confront today.Black voters, like the rest of the nation, have a vested interest in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I would not assume that black voters are a monolithic voting bloc, but most importantly, I would not ignore black voters. To do so would leave this critical voting bloc with a sense that only one major political party has any interest in the issues that affect their lives.

When Senators Hillary Clinton (D., N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D., Ill.) visited Alabama for the commemoration of "Bloody Sunday," the news media focused on which candidate would attract the all-important black vote. When all of the Democratic presidential candidates participated in Tavis Smiley's All American Presidential Forum on PBS, the news media again focused on the black community's reaction.When the four leading Republican presidential candidates failed to participate in Smiley's Republican presidential forum, the media and the rest of the nation had no choice but to ask why they were not there.(Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Alan Keyes, Ron Paul, and Tom Tancredo were there. I was there too; but I'm not running for president).

According to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, the Democratic share of the black vote declined from 2000 to 2004. In Ohio, between 2000 and 2004, the percentage of blacks who voted for President Bush increased from 9 to 16-percent. Similar increases were seen in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Given the narrow margin of victory President Bush realized in Ohio and other key states, all candidates should remember that every vote counts. In 2008, the number of black voters casting a ballot for a Republican candidate could make all of the difference.

It was a mistake to skip the Tavis Smiley debate, but now GOP candidates need to move forward to earn as many votes from African Americans as possible. The key to the political soul of black voters in America is pretty simple - equal opportunity and economic prosperity. If Republicans communicate their message effectively, 2008 may be a turning point in the battle for the political soul of the black vote.

If I were on the campaign trail, I would speak with black voters about the legacy of Brown v. Board of Education and the Little Rock Nine. I would talk about the disgraceful state of public education in America today, and unabashedly declare school choice the legacy of Brown and its legal progeny. Parents of children in urban schools have been told for years that public education just needs more money to teach students properly. While spending on education has soared, and these schools are still failing their students. Students deserve help now: parents deserve control over where their children attend school so that they can hold schools accountable for results. Ultimately, it is education reform that will lead to equal opportunity and economic prosperity.

Also, I would talk about the fact that despite a progressive benefit structure, our nation's current Social Security system fails the African American community, particularly black men. I would reach out to political scientist Ron Walters who called Social Security "a form of reverse reparations." I would enlist Richard Parsons, chairman and CEO of Time Warner, Gwendolyn S. King, a former Social Security Commissioner, and Robert L. Johnson, the former chairman and CEO of Black Entertainment Television - all African-American members of President Bush's Commission to Strengthen Social Security - to help explain the benefits of transforming Social Security into a system of savings and investment. After all, it isn't the income gap between black and whites that holds us back, it is the wealth gap. Owning an account that would grow into real wealth would help African-American families build for the future as well as save for retirement.

I would warn African-Americans about the downsides of Democratic proposals to expand the federal government's role in providing health care. More government regulations and restrictions will mean rising costs, long lines, and potentially outright rationing of care. I would offer a better vision of our health-care system: one that has patients in control of health-care resources and decisions.

As the race for the White House heats up, it's only natural for political commentators to focus on which candidate has the most traction in the black community. Make no mistake, black voters are listening, and a really smart Republican candidate just might have a chance.

-Michelle D. Bernard is the president of the Independent Women's Forum, a non-partisan, non-profit, educational institution that seeks to rebuild civil society by advancing economic liberty, personal responsibility, and political freedom.

POTUS XM 130: Election '08 Coverage

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:23:00 EDT

Michelle will discuss how the Independent Women's Forum is impacting the 2008 election.

CNN Newsroom: GOP presidential candidates to refuse to debate in front of an African-American audience

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:42:00 EDT

...

PBS' To the Contrary: Healthcare, Tax Cuts, and Feminism

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 11:30:00 EDT

...