Independent Women's Forum - In the Media > Media Coverage

IWF in the News: Eve Ensler Strikes Again

info@iwf.org (Sabrina Schaeffer) — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:04:00 EST

rjchq.org

If you were like me this week -- buried in snow and looking to pick up a new book - you may have come across Eve Ensler's newest work (released on Tuesday), I am an Emotional Creature.

Ensler is the author of the ridiculous - yet award-winning - play The Vagina Monologues. As feminist critic and scholar Christina Hoff Sommers described the play in a speech a few years ago:

1) It is atrociously written. 2) It is viciously anti-male; and 3) and, most importantly, it claims to empower women, when in fact it makes us seem desperate and pathetic.

Well Ensler has struck again. And as if The Vagina Monologues was not bad enough, by reducing grown women to nothing more than their vaginas, her newest book is all about girls and their quest to overcome the "pressures that rob them of their originality and power."

On the surface, there's nothing wrong of course with encouraging young women to move beyond the superficial, to develop self-admiration and self-confidence (certainly, it's something I hope to inspire in my young daughters). But Ensler does something entirely different.

She helps advance the same stale, leftist notion of feminism that sees women as victims living in an openly hostile and repressive society. (And unfortunately Ensler helps promote this belief system that continues to be held by so many women on the left. Just look at NOW's president Terry O'Neill's recent debate about the state of women in the West that I wrote about here.)

Ensler feels she can lump together all girls, from all walks of life, and all their varying life-challenges. As one left-leaning women's organization wrote about the book:

Though the pieces are all fictional monologues, Ensler says they are "based on what is real and true" in her observation of the lives of different girls all over the world. Among the girls Ensler creates are a teenager in a New York suburb struggling with high school peer pressure; a Masai girl resisting female genital mutilation in Kenya, where V-Day maintains a safe house; a survivor of rape in the Democratic Republic of Congo; a teen who blogs about her self-starvation. Says Ensler, "I hope it tells these interior stories of girls that don't normally get told, the secret stories ... as opposed to the fantasy version of what girls are living." She hopes that through the stories, "girls get freed into the reality of their lives."

Really? Can you honestly group together an American suburban girl struggling with peer pressure with a young girl in Kenya facing genital mutilation? It's absurd and offensive to reduce the suffering of all girls around the world and only helps diminish the real problems of violence and abuse facing girls in parts of the Middle East and Africa, for instance.

It's a shame that at a time when women are receiving more college degrees than men, out-earning their spouses, and serving in positions of leadership across all fields, Ensler still can not enjoy the advances girls and women have made.

IWF in the News: Nanny State Fears Nag First Lady's Anti-Obesity Push

Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:01:00 EST

On Tuesday, Michelle Obama will unveil a campaign to fight childhood obesity. She was interviewed on Good Morning America about the "Let's Move" campaign, which will aim to slap clear calorie labels on the front of beverages, and cut sugar and fat in school food among other initiatives. Will this be the long-needed push the country has needed to combat the obesity epidemic? Or is this more unwelcome interference by the federal government?

In her interview, Michelle Obama insists "there is no expert on this plan who says that the government telling people what to do actually does any good with this issue." Rather, she sees her role as merely someone "with a platform that may be able to shine a light on some of the suggestions."

Complicated Terrain The Big Money's Dan Mitchell responds to a New York Times story about a school principal trying to keep students' snack-selling ventures open. Mitchell says the anecdote "encapsulates so well what advocates of childhood health are up against." The "laissez faire" principal implicitly believes that it's OK for schools to teach algebra and--more to the point--health and physical education. But at the same time he believes teaching that eating garbage is bad for you should be left solely to parents. But he doesn't want to make it too easy for them, so he sells the kids all the junk food they want. Should we assume that Orange County High School's health classes avoid all discussion of nutrition?
A Job for Parents, Not the Government At the National Review, Julie Gunlock points to the First Lady's own story deciding to manage her daughters' diets. "Considering the vast number of resources available to the Obama girls even before their move to the White House," argues Gunlock, "it's clear that nothing had a greater impact on these young ladies' health than their mother's involvement." But this just shows, she continues, that "parental involvement, not the federal government, is the only long-term cure for childhood obesity--as Mrs. Obama has shown by her example, if not by her policy proposals."
Get the Federal Government Out of This Mrs. Obama does seem to want to reform school lunches, to which Below the Beltway blogger Doug Mataconis responds, via Twitter: "Which portion of the Constitution gives the Federal Government authority to regulate what they serve for lunch in Scranton, PA?" He and Teresa Kopec bicker over this matter. "60% of all school lunches in this country are supplied by 4 companies so it is hardly a 'local' issue," retorts Kopec. She also poses the following question: "So basically the FDA is unconstitutional in your opinion? Companies should be able to add carcinogens in food & up to us to figure it out?" Mataconis remains firm: "The content of school lunches is not a federal concern. Period"
Entirely Unrelated Issue Psychologist Dr. Susan Albers is all for Michelle Obama's plan, but cautions that she needs to be careful not to veer from obesity-preventing actions to anything that might promote eating disorders. "Weight alone is not an indicator of a child's health," she reminds readers.

IWF in the News: Bush 'Divorced From Reality'

info@iwf.org (Sabrina Schaeffer) — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:46:00 EST

answerbag.com

Analysts and media op-ed writers have spent the past couple of days dissecting and digesting the Iraq War Report Card presented by the US military commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, and his State Department sidekick Ambassador Ryan Crocker.

Perhaps the two most significant points that those who watched the testimony will remember are (1) no plans for a troop withdrawal for the time being, and (2) Iran is to blame for everything that has gone wrong.

The testimony also contrasted sharply with earlier statements by President George W. Bush and General Petraeus about how "astonishingly normal things have become in Baghdad."

One of course has to speculate on what benchmark of normalcy Washington is working to.

At the time of writing, a correspondent colleague of mine had just described by MSN a mad dash out of the Sadr City district of Baghdad after a firefight exploded not 10 feet from where she and other journalists were standing. The word "normalcy" did not feature in her description of events.

Coming as it does against this dramatic increase in violence in Baghdad and elsewhere, the Petraeus-Crocker testimony paints a very odd picture of normalcy -- one that in their words is "fragile and reversible."

In fact, with the exception of rhetoric-filled speeches from Bush himself, the one word we rarely, if ever hear, is that the road to peace, democracy and stability in Iraq is "irreversible."

Appearing on PressTV's political discussion program, "Middle East Today," former Senator Mike Gravel said what struck him the most was the repeated reference to "fragile and reversible."

"Obviously the tactic of bribing the Sunni warlords will fail the minute we stop bribing them. And then of course the cowardly act of blaming Iraqi President Nuri al-Maliki for the failure in Basra, of saying it was all his initiative when we were totally complicit."Gravel said the forces loyal to anti-occupation cleric Muqtada al-Sadr had proven to be much stronger than anticipated and blamed a lack of intelligence for the failure.

Astonishingly, Gravel said, there have been cases where professional Arabic and Farsi linguists have been discharged from the military because they were gay and as a consequence "our intelligence is nonexistent."

Sabrina Schaeffer, a Washington-based political analyst said there are possibly two things that could be taken away from the report."The first is that we are making a lot of progress both politically and militarily on the ground. And second that a premature withdrawal would be a disaster, and would overturn what they described as a fragile and reversible situation on the ground," she said.

Sabah Jawad, secretary of the London-based Iraqi Democrats Against War, dismissed reports of progress."While there may have been some changes in the months immediately after the surge in US troop levels, in the past few days we have seen some 17 American soldiers killed since Sunday.

"He said the United States is still in a quagmire in Iraq and is trying to solve its problems by flexing its muscles and urging the al-Maliki government to take stronger action, especially in the south of Iraq.

Senator Gravel also took issue with Schaeffer's upbeat assessment.

"I really don't understand how Sabrina can come and say there's progress," he said. "But what is worse is the outright lies presented to the American people that Iran is responsible for what is going on."

Gravel said Washington is trying to develop a concept of a proxy war being waged between Iran and Iraq.

"There is no evidence, none at all," he said, "And if you go in deeper into the American military, you have army officers, captains, majors, colonels, who will tell you there is no evidence at all about anything coming over the Iranian border into Iraq. But then you get Petraeus and other generals making these statements."

Gravel wondered how they could make statements that the mortars used on the heavily fortified Green Zone, for example, are coming from Iran.

"These are outright lies," he said.Gravel said he could see the same policy being employed now that was used by the US to widen the war in South East Asia some 40 years ago.

"This is what happened in Vietnam. We went in and attacked Cambodia and Laos. They had nothing to do with what was going on in Vietnam. All it did was expand a murderous part of the South East Asian War."

Gravel said Iran is a natural ally of the United States, "Iran has been helping us stabilize the situation in Iraq until we can come to our senses and get out. Our guest here Sabrina says she sees progress, but even Petraeus admitted he sees no light at the end of the tunnel."

Schaeffer took the floor to clarify what she says are some of the successes.

"I think Petraeus did an excellent job of explaining this incident in Basra, but overall we have seen a reduction in both ethnic and sectarian violence, terrorist attacks are down, the Iraqis are controlling half of their 18 provinces, and we are seeing that al-Qaida in Iraq has significantly diminished," she said, "And I think we can give credit to the troop surge and Petraeus' experience in counterinsurgency intelligence. So I don't think we can underestimate the improvements that are taking place on the ground."

The recent surge in violence, especially in Sadr City that continued over the weekend would not immediately support these views, with correspondents on the scene saying that for the first time they are quite openly seeing snipers on the roofs of buildings and more disturbances on the streets.

Gravel dismissed suggestions that the surge or Petraeus' expertise was responsible for the pre-Basra reduction in the insurgency across Iraq.

Gravel said the reduction had been bought with US taxpayer money and that the relative calm would end as quickly as the money did.

"Do you know how much money Petraeus has been handing out to Sunni warlords?" he asked.

"To suppress the violence. Do you really have any idea?"

Schaeffer said she acknowledged there is an impulse to want to put a price tag on the cost of the war, but that doing so, or putting a timeline on how long the war would take, "is just irresponsible."

Jawad, taking much the same line as Gravel, was deaf to any claims of progress.

"I will tell you of the successes in Iraq," he said, "One million killed by the US occupation, five million dispersed people internally and externally. More than a million widows, five million orphans, 150,000 people arrested in centers run by the United States in Iraq, and there is a catalogue of catastrophes inflicted on the people of Iraq by this war. And the sooner they withdraw," he added, "the better for all of us."

Schaeffer argued that the picture being painted that the US forces were universally unwelcome was misleading and pointed out that the Iraqi government has vocalized and demonstrated its long-term commitment to cooperation to achieve final and lasting peace and democracy in Iraq.

Gravel, citing independent opinion polls, begged to differ.

"This is an army of occupation, and if you look at the polls the people of Iraq overwhelmingly want us to leave," he said, "and we should honor that."

Gravel said the United States invaded Iraq on the back of fraud and lies by the Bush administration: "This is criminal of the order that should go to the world criminal court."

The former Senator from Alaska said the only way to achieve stability would be for the United States to admit error, and then go to Iraq's neighbors, including Iran, and ask for their help in bringing stability to Iraq.

"Here you have President Ahmadinejad of Iran, who I don't have any particular truck with by the way, but he goes to Iraq and he is more popular than any American official."

The American leader, Gravel said, goes to Iraq and he has to sneak around in the dark of night with total security.

"Ahmadinejad goes in there and he is treated as a friend, does that not communicate something to anyone?"

Continuing the war under the illusion that progress is being made, Gravel said, is indicative of how out of touch Bush really is.

"George Bush is not on this planet, truthfully," Gravel said, "He really has no sense of reality of what is going on. Last week he told the American people we are not in a recession, while Alan Greenspan a day later said we were, and this is something the American people know. Bush is divorced from reality whether it's about Iraq, Iran or the economy. He is not plugged into reality."

Gravel said Washington's apparent policy to attack Iran could possibly trigger a nuclear exchange.

Gravel's concerns were shared by Schaeffer, "I think the point that attacking Iran might trigger a nuclear war is what's concerning the Bush administration.

We have to take the actions and rhetoric of President Ahmadinejad very seriously. It would be irresponsible not to do so. And I think we have to remember this is a man who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map, a man who has denied the Holocaust."

She said here is a man who has vowed to knock down global powers, and we have to assume that he's pointing his finger at the United States.

Schaeffer's comment regarding "wiping Israel off the map" is an oft-quoted mistranslation, but one frequently used to attack Iran's president and his policies."

Actually he did not say he would wipe Israel off the map," Jawad explained.

"This statement has been corrected but it is still repeated by US officials. He did not say this, but I am not surprised to hear this repeated all the time."

The actual statement made by Ahmadinejad called for the "removal of the Zionist regime in Jerusalem from the pages of history."

Many experts say that you can "assume" or "infer" Ahmadinejad's real intentions are to wipe Israel off the map, but the simple fact remains, he did not say it.

They point out that Washington's aim in invading Iraq was to wipe the Baathist regime in Baghdad from the pages of history, but not to wipe Iraq off the map.

One of the cornerstones of the Petraeus-Crocker report was what they described as the "malign Iranian involvement in Iraq" and Tehran's support for special groups that target American troops and other coalition interests in the country.

President Bush later told a select group at a press conference that America would do what was necessary to prevent Iranian interference in Iraq, a thinly veiled threat of military action.

But Gravel said to his knowledge, there is still no substantiated evidence that Iran is playing a military role in the insurgency.

"It is being fabricated by the White House and being bought into by some of these senior military leaders. This is all part of the neocon plan to gain hegemony, economic hegemony in the Middle East, and that is American imperialism that we have to reverse."

Schaeffer acknowledges that the engagement and cooperation of Iraq's neighbors is an important factor in the eventual stabilization of Iraq and its efforts to achieve peace and democracy.

"But I think, for instance, when Senator Obama talks about opening up diplomatic channels with President Ahmadinejad, I think just helps to legitimize a leader that unfortunately has been irresponsible in his rhetoric."

But as Senator Gravel pointed out earlier in the discussion, being irresponsible in his rhetoric is a description that could just as easily be applied to Bush.

IWF in the News: Equal Pay Shouldn't Have Gotten a Mention

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:05:00 EST

The National Review

The State of the Union contained a throw-away line: "We are going to crack down on violations of equal-pay laws - so that women get equal pay for an equal day's work." Presumably, this was included just so the president could check the box of having had something for the feminists. Yet it's worth asking, how is this different than what's being done now? Discrimination based on sex is already illegal, and presumably the administration has already been "cracking down" on companies that are mistreating women, or anyone else.

But what's worse, the line continues to propagate the impression that women are still victims of systematic discrimination (they aren't). And threats to ramp up federal investigations into the workplace hardly seem the best way to encourage employment.

It's a throw-away line that should have been thrown away completely.

IWF in the News: Athletics at Duquesne

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:49:00 EST

The National Review

Duquesne University announced yesterday that it is cutting four varsity sports programs as part of a "long-term competitive" initiative. The programs getting axed are baseball, men's swimming, men's golf, and wrestling.

While the school hasn't mentioned Title IX (they rarely do), Eric McErlain crunches the participation numbers over at Saving Sports and notices that by cutting all men's teams, Duquesne moves very close to the legal safe harbor of Title IX's proportionality measure. How convenient.

IWF in the News: The Big Question: What Does Brown's Win Mean for Obama and Dems?

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:21:00 EST

The Hill

Some of the nation's top political commentators, legislators and intellectuals offer insight into the biggest question burning up the blogosphere today.

Today's question:

Scott Brown beat Martha Coakley. What is the message for President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats?

Michelle D. Bernard, president & CEO of the Independent Women's Forum, said:

Americans Want Change Once Again

The message to Democrats from last night election couldn't be more clear: the American people are disgusted with Washington politics and reject it's big government agenda.

One year ago, Massachusetts voted for President Obama by more than 20 percentage points. Yesterday they voted in a Republican by a 5 point margin. This is a political earthquake. The Democratic leadership can no longer claim that just a fringe of Americans oppose their agenda. A majority of Massachusetts voters are political independents. They overwhelmingly voted for Scott Brown and against his Democratic opponent.

Many voters saw this explicitly as a referendum on health care and voted for Scott Brown solely so that he could be the 41st vote against the proposed health care legislation. This means something! Democrats need to recognize that a majority of Americans strongly oppose their proposals and are appalled at the backroom deals and bribery that have been used to advance this legislation.

Democrats have time to recover-at least partially-before the mid-term elections. Recovery starts with recognizing that they have a big problem, actually listening to the message that Americans have sent, and committing to govern from the center.

IWF in the News: American Women, 2-to-1, Prefer Private Health Insurance

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:16:00 EST

cnsnews.com

WASHINGTON, D.C. (CNSNews.com) - Nearly two-thirds of American women would rather have private health-care insurance than a government-run plan, according to a poll released Thursday by the Independent Women's Forum.

The same proportion, two-thirds, also said Congress should not rush to pass a health-care bill.

By a margin of 64 percent to 27 percent, women agreed they "would rather have private health insurance than a government-run health insurance plan," according to the poll.

The random- digit-dial telephone survey, which was conducted by pollster Kellyanne Conway, surveyed 800 women from across the country from Oct. 19-25.

"In this poll we treat women like grownups," said Conway, a Republican and president of the polling company. "We don't ask them just about babies and families, although we cover those issues. We ask them about real world economics, real tradeoffs and the real costs associated with our health-care system."

The poll found that concern over the economy (39 percent) topped health care as women's main concern.

But the poll found that at least two-thirds of women are happy with their own health insurance and health care.

-- 66 percent described the quality of their health insurance as "excellent" or "good." 74 percent used the same terms to describe the quality of their health care.

-- 75 percent don't want drastic changes made to theire own health care (40 percent said it should "be modified, but mostly left the same," 35 percent said it should "be left as is" and 19 percent want it to "undergo dramatic overhaul.")

-- 59 percent don't want drastric changes to health care in America (35 percent said "undergo dramatic overhaul," 48 percent said "be modified, but mostly left the same" and 11 percent said "be left as is.")

"Less than 10 percent of women think that they are getting 'the short end of the stick' in terms of health-care," Independent Women's Forum Senior Policy Analyst Nicole Kurowzawa told CNSNews.com.

Moreover, women overwhelmingly said they didn not want their own health insurance to be switched to government-run insurance, Kurozawa said.

-- 62 percent disagreed with the statement: "A government-run health care program is best for my family and me."

-- 57 percent said they would not trade out their coverage for a government-run health care plan, and 56 percent disagreed with the statement: "Women like me would be best-served by a government-run health-care plan."

-- Approximately two-thirds (66 percent) of women said they think about health-care reform more for others who need it than for themselves; 10 percent said they consider it mostly in terms of their own needs.

"When women say they want expanded federal health-care, they mean that they want it to exclude themselves," Kurowkawa. "They want it to reach out to the poor, to reach out to the elderly. "

Women also see no need for speed in passing legislation, the poll found.

In fact, when asked, the overwhelming majority (67 percent) of women agreed with the following statement: "I would prefer that United States Senators and Members of Congress not support poorly-crafted or rushed healthcare legislation. It is more important to get it done right than to get it done fast."

"Less than 30 percent of the women surveyed said that ‘something is better than nothing,'" Kurowzawa said, adding that the finding doesn't come as a surprise.

"The idea that we should slow down and read the bills makes total sense, but it's good to see that most women across the country also think it makes good sense, as well," she said.

The poll was released on the same day that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) unveiled a revamped version of the health-care reform bill in the House of Representatives.

"We have listened to the American people; we are putting forth a bill that reflects our best values and addresses our greatest challenges," Pelosi said in a Thursday ceremony conducted on the steps of the U.S. Capitol.

Interestingly, however, according to the IWF poll, 71 percent of women business owners (and 67 percent of women overall) said they would be "less likely" to vote for a candidate for Congress "knowing he or she favored moving people from their private healthcare plans to government-run health-care plans."

Only 19 percent of respondents said they would be more likely to support such a candidate.

Moreover, 68 percent of women who described themselves as independents disagreed with the statement: "Overhauling the nation's healthcare system is so important that it should be enacted even if it significantly increases the federal budget deficit" (compared to 33 percent of Democrats and 76 percent of Republicans).

The scientifically designed survey sampled women in every age group, and from every part of the country.

Forty-three (43) percent described themselves as conservative, 22 percent as liberal, 40 percent were Democrats, 32 percent Republicans, 22 percent were Independents. Overall, 53 percent described themselves as "pro-life," 40 percent as "pro-choice." Fifty-eight percent said they voted for Obama, 40 percent for McCain.

The poll's margin of error is plus-or-minus 3.5 percent.

IWF in the News: How the Media Are Covering 'Head Start's' Failure

Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:18:00 EST

The Cato Institute

A day after it was released, here's a roundup of how the mainstream media are covering the HHS study showing that America's $100 billion plus investment in Head Start is a failure:

[...crickets...]

Nada. Zilch. Rien du tout, mes amis.

That's based on a Google News search for ["Head Start" study]. The only media organs to touch on this topic so far have been blogs: Jay Greene's, The Heritage Foundation's, the Independent Women's Forum, and the one you're reading right now.

Okay. There was one exception. According to Google News, one non-blog - with a print version no less - covered this story so far. The NY Times? The Washington Post? Nope: The World, a Christian news magazine. And they actually did their homework, linking to this recent and highly relevant review of the research on pre-K program impacts.

And for those other publications in the MSM still standing at the edge of the pool: the water's warm folks, c'mon in.

What's really interesting, though, is that the HHS had the moral fibre to actually issue a press release about this damning study. That showed courage - and a certain panache. I particularly liked this, from HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius: "Research clearly shows that Head Start positively impacts the school readiness of low-income children."

Umm, yes Ms. Secretary, but the same research shows those effects vanish by the end of first grade. I guess that information is on a need-to-not-know basis. The public needs to not know about it or the administration hasn't got a snowball's chance in Kauai of getting American tax payers to throw another $100 billion or so at government pre-K, as President Obama is so very keen to do.

Update
In my original review of the coverage on this story I missed the blog that first broke the story: Early Ed Watch at the New America Foundation. One thing that distinguishes New America's supporters of big government pre-k programs from those in the Obama administration is that the former have a good grasp of the implications of this study, writing that: "The next few weeks are probably going to be rocky ones for the Head Start community. Results released today from the Impact Study show that children's gains from participating in Head Start, documented in a 2005 installment of the study, do not last through the end of 1st grade."

But if the folks at the NAF recognize this reality, that begs an important question: will they now redirect their efforts to the support of programs whose benefits for disadvantaged children actually grow in magnitude the longer kids stay in school, or will they continue to push for programs like Head Start that have been proven costly failures?

IWF in the News: White Liberalism Is Inherently Racist

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:00:00 EST

The Examiner

While the recently exposed racist comments made by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Bill Clinton may be shocking and offensive, they are simply indicative of the way most white liberals view black Americans.

The comments were revealed in "Game Change" by Time Magazine's Mark Halperin and New York magazine's John Heilemann. The book gives a behind the scenes look at the 2008 presidential campaign.

In the book, Harry Reid is quoted as describing Barack Obama as a "light skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

Also exposed, was a comment by Bill Clinton, as he was trying to persuade Sen. Ted Kennedy to endorse Hillary Clinton for president. Clinton told Kennedy that just a few years ago, would have been serving them coffee.

While Reid was quick to apologize for his statement (and his true feelings toward 13 percent of this nation's population), Clinton has offered no such apology and has refused to even speak about the issue...Of course, Clinton, unlike Reid, is not up for re-election this year.

Though always dismissed by the mainstream news media, liberals, as does the Democrat Party have a long history of racism, and keeping blacks "in their place."

Immediately following President Bush's 2004 announcement that National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice would replace Colin Powell as Secretary of State, the left-wing racists began their attack.

Madison, WI liberal talk show host John Sylvester called Condoleeza Rice an "Aunt Jemima." Sylvester said: "I was aiming that directly at a black person that is letting himself be used by an administration that has been extremely hostile to minorities."

You see, the liberal left does not believe that black Americans should have the right to an opinion--unless they espouse liberal ideals. If a black man or woman becomes a Republican or claims to be a conservative, they are deemed a sell-out.

Once the left realizes that they cannot control the words and actions of a prominent black leader, they allow their true feelings toward the entire black race come to the surface. For the Democrat Party, black folks are seen as nothing more than a voting block to be manipulated.

During her time with the Bush administration, several political cartoons appeared in most of this nation's liberal newspapers which exaggerated the black features of Dr. Rice, and were reminiscent of the racist cartoons that that were common in American newspapers during the 'Jim Crow' period.

Michelle D. Bernard, senior vice president of the Independent Women's Forum.said of the cartoons: "The depiction of Dr. Condoleezza Rice by Jeff Danziger, Pat Oliphant and Garry Trudeau as an ebonics speaking, big-lipped, black mammy who just loves her 'massa' is a disturbing trend in editorial cartoons. These cartoons take the racism of the liberals who profess respect and adoration for black Americans to a new level. It is revolting."

The NAACP was completely silent on this issue. However, had Dr. Rice been a liberal Democrat, that organization would have plenty to say. The incident truly demonstrated that the NAACP is nothing more than another branch of the Democrat Party.

Nor did NOW (National Organization for Women) or the League of Women Voters come to the defense of Dr. Rice. Could it be due to the fact that these groups are also not what they claim to be and merely fronts for the Democrat Party? Of course, both organizations sat silently throughout the Clinton years and refused to condemn a president who was clearly a sexual predator.

One favorite left-wing policy is that of affirmative action, the practice of awarding jobs, promotions, and college admission based solely on the color of one's skin. When conservatives argue against the policy, we are called racists. However, it is those who push for affirmative action who are the true racists.

With honors being awarded based on one's race, the left is saying that blacks and Hispanics cannot compete with whites on an even playing field, that they must be given an advantage that they themselves are not capable of achieving.

So, who are the true racists?

IWF in the News: CBC 2009 Winners and Losers

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:55:00 EST

The Center for Bioethics and Culture Net

Winners:

Dr. Darwin J. Prockop, a worldwide leader in adult stem cell research, has moved his research lab from Tulane University to the Texas A&M Health Center which has pledged $40 million over the next 5 years towards his research. Lawmakers in Texas have invested $5 million towards adult stem cell research as have other states like Oklahoma.

Jason Jones, founder of HERO (Human-Rights Education and Relief Organization) and the I Am Whole Life Campaign, whose mission is to "promote a respect for the intrinsic dignity of the human person regardless of ability, age, status, ethnicity or sex." As another initiative,Jones has recently launched MoviesToMovement to foster art that promotes human dignity.

Michelle D. Bernard, President of the Independent Women's Forum, a non-partisan organization dedicated to promoting limited government, free markets, and personal responsibility. IWF advocates for "authentic feminism that embraces children and likes men, school choice, education reform, sound, non-politicized science, and is against higher taxes and wasteful government spending."

www.StemCellResearchFacts.org, a new website devoted to highlighting the advances in the oft maligned and misunderstood science of adult stem cell research. It was created to show the real promise and hope that adult stem cells offer and serves as a tool to help clarify the stem cell debate.

Life Legal Defense Foundation, who just celebrated their 25th anniversary of providing trained legal defense to the innocent and the voiceless. They have provided legal defense in notable cases such as the family of Terri Schiavo and Rev. Walter Hoye as well as heading a legal challenge against Proposition 71 in California.

Dr. Qi Zhou, of the State Key Laboratory of Reproductive Biology at the Chinese Academy of Sciences whose advances in iPS cell research led a team that created virtual genetic duplicates of mice using skin cells from adult animals. His research proved the functional equivalency of these cells to the embryonic stem cell.

Losers:

Nadya Suleman, the 33 year old single mother who has said she is open to having more children has 14 children through in vitro fertilization technology. Eight of the children were born at once this year, landing her the title "Octomom." Claims were made that six embryos were implanted, with two of the embryos twinning, resulting in eight live births.

Michael Kamrava, who treated "Octomom," Nadya Suleman, was expelled from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) amid a flurry of controversy. He was responsible for implanting at least 6 embryos in Suleman's uterus. He continues to practice, but he now faces several accusations by the Medical Board of California that could potentially result in the suspension or revocation of is medical license.

Ben Ramaley, a fertility doctor in Connecticut was accused of impregnating a female patient without her knowledge, let alone her consent, using his own sperm. The couple had doubts about the biological father when their twins were born with a "fair complexion." The patient's husband is African-American. DNA testing confirmed their suspicions.

Geron Corporation, received clearance from the FDA to begin the world's first human clinical trial using human embryonic stem cells in patients with newly diagnosed spinal cord injuries. As of now, the FDA has placed a hold on the trial due to safety concerns. Geron hopes by the third quarter of 2010 the trial will be in progress.

Sweden, where the Swedish National Board of Health has ruled that women are allowed to end their pregnancies, up to the 18th week, based solely on the gender of the fetus, if they so choose. This decision came in response to a Swedish woman aborted her babies several times because they weren't boys.

New York, the first state to allow taxpayer funds to compensate women up to $10,000 who donate their eggs for embryonic stem cell research. The American Society of Reproductive Medicine ‘guidelines,' suggest a woman can donate her eggs up to six times. An egg "donor" in New York could potentially make $60,000 while endangering her health.

IWF in the News: The Big Question: What Do Democratic Exits Mean for 2010 Races?

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 09:59:00 EST

The Hill

Some of the nation's top political commentators, legislators and intellectuals offer some insight into the biggest question burning up the blogosphere today.

Today's question:

Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) will not seek reelection. What does this news mean for the 2010 election? How will this impact President Barack Obama's agenda?

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, said:

The window is closing on the Democrats' ability to unilaterally do dramatic damage to the country.

They will not have 60 votes in the Senate after the November 2010 election. Dorgan was a strong incumbent who has won repeatedly in a red state-despite voting to the Left of Barney Frank. His leaving makes it almost certain that an R will take this seat in 2010 and that Conrad will follow him out the door, vertically or horizontally, in 2012 as Conrad will not have the cover of his fellow Senator casting identical votes on each issue. From 2011 on, Conrad's votes for the labor union/trial lawyer/big city agenda will contrast with those of Hoeven. So there will be a Republican Senator contrasted with a Democrat Senator. A moderate conservative contrasted with a liberal democrat. Two years of casting identifiably left wing votes will finish Conrad.

Dodd would have stayed if Obama and the Democrats were popular enough to muscle him back into office. Dodd left because the current was against the Democrats and Obama is no longer the powerful popular figure that can sweep in and save a failing campaign.

Michelle D. Bernard, president & CEO of the Independent Women's Forum, said:

Sinking poll numbers and congressional approval ratings should have led the Democratic leadership to conclude that they were pursuing an agenda that most of America rejects. But after months of ignoring these warning signs, some politicians are deciding they'd rather throw in the towel than face an angry electorate. While the loss of Senator Dodd may actually improve Democrats' electoral prospects, the rash of retirements is just more evidence that many Democrats are out of touch with America and face potentially devastating losses in November. They would be wise to abandon the worst of their big government agenda and start governing from the center--after all, that's why voters elected them in the first place.

Bernie Quigley, Pundits Blog contributor, said:

Dodd was polled to lose against any contender including libertarian Peter Schiff. He recognizied that the sea has changed even here in tradition-bound New England. I think the Obama admin has orchestrated the ramming through of astonishing amounts of deficit-based changes in a hurry knowing that the country would react against them, but thinking that it would be too late to do anything about it. Wrong. This is poor spirited. The results will be historic and and possibly catastrophic. It simply will not work in a country as alive as ours; 1840s Russia yes, 1920s China yes - those were dead realms. What these programs have done here is awakened the heartland. The states will defend against them and have now found the antidote: Jefferson and the 10th Amendment. These Dems are getting out of Dodge while the getting is good.

Brad Delong, professor of Economics at UC Berkley, said:

Hmmm...

So far, as I understand it, we have (i) three Democratic governors who could seek reelection have decided not to, while four Republican governors who could seek reelection have decided not to; (ii) 12 Democratic House members and 13 Republican House members who have decided to retire; and if I recall correctly (iii) six Republican Senate members and two Democratic ones who have decided to retire.

So it looks as though the retirement tide is still running against the Republicans, at least in the Senate...

Ron Walters, professor of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland, said:

Chris Dodd was a vital cog in President Obama's legislative team and it will undoubtedly throw more pressure on the leadership of Harry Reid to get things through. However, this may also be a perfect tiiming for an exit by Dodd, having capped a 36 year career with a monumental victory that comes about in several generations. So, Dodd may not be missed as Obama's priorities shift to other areas of the Congress. The main issue then becomes that since Dodd was running behind in the state polls whether he will be replaced by another Democrat and in view of Dorgan's decision to retire, whether Democrats will retain the 60 votes necessary to affect cloture. That will also be the most serious result.

Hal Lewis, professor of Physics at UC Santa Barbara, said:

As a good friend keeps reminding me, you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.

A.B. Stoddard, Associate Editor of The Hill, said:

Retirements by senior Democrats do not come as a surprise, and there could be more. Looking down the barrel of the 2010 midterm elections the party is on the defensive this year in a way Democrats never imagined: on energy reform, the stimulus, on their signature issue of health care with support for reform dropping by the month, on the economy and joblessness and on the issue of terror and the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay. This year will be a kick-the-bums-out year for sure.

Democrats could very well keep the seat of Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), since he had personal liabilities and the new Democratic candidate has won statewide and is in a strong political position there. Democrats are likely to lose the seat of Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), however, particularly if the GOP governor makes a run for it.

Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, said:

Many Democrats thought that healthcare would be a winning issue in 2010. But the bill is highly unpopular. As Hartford Courant columnist Kevin Rennie blogs regarding Dodd's decision: "The healthcare bounce was showing no signs of making an appearance. The imminent passage of the behemoth bill is hardening, not easing, the public's hostility to incumbents."

Obama ran on a platform of openness and moderation, but is ducking his promises on openness while pushing an agenda far more radical than his campaign suggested. In response, Americans have been pulling away, and it's not surprising that members of Congress are choosing to get out rather than face an angry public next fall.

Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com, said:

When you hear that locomotive coming down the tracks, it's best to get out of the way.

Dodd's collusion with the real estate scamsters and AIG pretty much doomed his reelection chances, and so it made sense - financially - for him to get out.

But more than Dodd's corruption is involved here: an anti-incumbent, anti-bailout, populist wave is rising, and has been since Obama's election, and it won't crest for years. That wave will crush BOTH parties, unless they figure out a way to either surf it, or get out of the way.

Alan Abramowitz, professor of political science at Emory University, said:

Dorgan's retirement makes it a little more likely that Republicans will pick up the North Dakota seat, but he would have probably faced a tough race if he had run. Dodd's retirement makes it more likely that Democrats will keep the Connecticut seat since the likely Democratic nominee, Connecticut AG Richard Blumenthal, is much more popular than Dodd. Neither will have any impact on Obama's agenda for the rest of the year. If anything, Dorgan may feel freer to support Obama's policies.

Richard S. Lindzen, atmospheric physicist and professor at MIT, said:

It might not mean much. They might be stepping aside in order to allow the Democrats to run stronger candidates. To be sure, this indicates an above-normal degree of nervousness. However, the Massachusetts election on Jan. 19 to choose a replacement for Ted Kennedy could be more important. In the still unlikely case that the Republican, Brown, wins, that could well be a game-changer. The polls show him catching up with the fairly unattractive Democratic candidate, Martha Coakley.

Rob Richie, executive director of FairVote, said:

In narrow, direct partisan terms, not all retirements are the same. Sen. Dodd's retirement gives Connecticut Democrats a better chance to keep his seat. Sen. Dorgan's retirement is a likely boon for Republicans in North Dakota.

With a net loss of seats in the Senate likely and potential big losses in the House, Obama and congressional Democrats must weigh advancing issues for which they may need their current strong Democratic majorities to win with political calculation about avoiding potentially dangerous votes for members facing hard reelection battles. There are political arguments both ways, but a lot of their base does not want policy decisions to be driven entirely by short-term partisan calculations.

Dick Morris, columnist and Pundits Blog contributor, said:

It will trigger a wave of Democratic dropouts and defections and party switches. It marks the beginning of the end of his congressional ascendancy.

John F. McManus, president of The John Birch Society, said:

I understand that there are more GOP senators who are not running for reelection than the two Democrats who just announced retirement. The decisions of Dodd and Dorgan should not have GOP leaders jumping for joy prematurely. A Democrat will likely succeed Dodd in Connecticut and it looks like a Republican will succeed Dorgan in North Dakota. Not a big shift in power there. What happens with the seats currently held by retiring GOP senators should be factored into thoughts about what will become of President Obama's agenda.

It would be wonderful for the nation if leading Republicans were markedly different from leading Democrats. The notion that automatically identifies Republicans as believable conservatives/constitutionalists is not merited. The country needs people who believe in LESS government, not more efficient, or more compassionate, or more something else kind of government. How much LESS? Read and abide by the U.S. Constitution for an extremely important answer to this extremely important question.

IWF in the News: Another Victory for Free Speech

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 09:15:00 EST

The National Review

Over at the Washington Examiner, J. P. Freire reports on the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education's recent victory over the thought police at the University of Minnesota.

IWF in the News: Against Government Preschool

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:17:00 EST

Choice Remarks

Carrie Lukas, vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women's Forum and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism, makes a case against government funding for preschool.

Posted by Brandon Dutcher at 10:00 AM Labels: Preschool Choice

IWF in the News: A 'Permanent National Recession'

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:53:00 EST

Choice Remarks

"Our public schools are a drag on the economy," Carrie Lukas writes. "We are poorer and have lower standard of living because we have allowed this problem to persist."

Posted by Brandon Dutcher at 10:40 AM Labels: Bottomless Pit, School Performance Woes

IWF in the News: A Bathroom of Her Own

Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:56:00 EST

Inside Higher Ed

The coed college bathroom, like the coed college dormitory, is so common (at least in some parts of the country) that it inspires crude comedy sketches, advice columns and complaints.

At least one student who doesn't think bathrooms should be shared between male and female students is fighting back. A new lawsuit by a student at Green Mountain College charges that Vermont officials (and those in other states) have an obligation to make sure that all public buildings need to have separate bathrooms for men and women.

Jennifer Weiler, the freshman who sued, says that Green Mountain housed her in a facility where only shared bathrooms were available. When she complained, the suit says, the college designated a bathroom in her dormitory as a women's bathroom, but did nothing when male students went right on using it.

Ron Weiler, Jennifer's father, said in an interview that his daughter had no idea when enrolling that the bathrooms were shared by men and women. He said that the bathrooms feature showers with curtains, and toilets in stalls. But he said that while the female students generally disrobe and towel themselves behind the shower curtains, many male students do not, nor do the male students necessarily shut the stall doors.

"The men just disrobe in the middle of the room," Weiler said, and women shouldn't have to see that.

Weiler said that state building codes generally require public buildings -- a category that would include dormitories -- to have both men's and women's facilities. And Weiler said he complained to the college, to state officials, and to others before suing the state to compel enforcement of building codes. "What we have is that it's seen as politically incorrect to interfere with what goes on on college campuses," Weiler said.

He added that he has no problem with a college opting to have some coed bathrooms, as long as there are single-sex facilities readily available throughout any residential facilities.

Vermont and college officials couldn't be reached for comment, and the suit indicates that the state has asserted that it is not responsible for determining the bathroom breakdown at colleges. But Weiler noted that the issue has come up elsewhere and he predicted that more people might raise protests about coed bathrooms.

Bathroom Politics in Higher Ed

The suit in Vermont represents the latest twist in the politics of bathrooms in higher education. Of late, the big push has been by transgender students, who have urged the creation of coed bathrooms or of individual bathrooms, where one does not need to designate oneself in a traditional male/female dichotomy to use the facilities. But many colleges -- outside of institutions where religious or local political traditions would frown on such a move -- have had coed bathrooms for years. In part this has been a matter of convenience, as colleges that used to have strict gender separation in residence halls, with one large bathroom to a floor, have modified bathroom policies as they became open to coeducational floors.

The issue has been debated periodically at Williams College, courtesy of Wendy Shalit, an alumna who launched her career as a pundit and an advocate for sexual "modesty" with an essay in Commentary, later reprinted for a much larger audience in Reader's Digest, in which she criticized the college's coed bathrooms and linked them to the decline of traditional dating.

Shalit, in comments similar to those of Weiler's suit, says that it wasn't her own body that led her to complain but the forced closeness to others. "When I objected, I was told by my fellow students that I 'must not be comfortable with [my] body.' Frankly, I didn't get that, because I was fine with my body; it was their bodies in such close proximity to mine that I wasn't thrilled about," she wrote. In an interview with the Independent Women's Forum, Shalit said that while she was mocked for expressing these views, she was thanked privately by many students who told her that they agreed, but didn't want to be labeled as prudes.

A spokesman for Williams said that changes at Williams over the years have had "the result, though not the purpose," of placing more first-year students in buildings with separate men's and women's bathrooms than was the case previously (when Shalit raised the issue).

But one of the practices Shalit criticized -- letting students on a given floor decide whether to make the bathrooms coed -- remains. "It's still the case that students organize dorm life and in some situations, over the course of the year, students determine that the cost of walking to the bathroom designated for their sex, though close by adult standards, exceeds the benefit," he said.

James Baumann, director of communications for the Association of College and University Housing Officers-International, said that there are no national data on the percentage of colleges that have coed bathrooms. But he said that "it grows in its commonality each year."

Joey McNamara, national chair of the National Association of College and University Residence Halls, which represents students who live in the halls, said that bathroom issues have come up for the group primarily when planning conferences. Some members don't want to meet at campuses that have strictly male and female bathrooms, he said.

McNamara, a student at Lynn University, said he has only experienced single-sex bathrooms and that he has sympathy for Weiler. "I think privacy needs to be allowed," he said.

Of course, at many campuses with coed bathrooms, the concerns tend to come from parents and prospective students -- while the realities of coed bathrooms are sufficiently mundane that everyone seems to get used to the situation. Michael Snively, one of the students who blogs for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology admissions office, wrote on his blog that he is constantly asked to write about the issue or to answer questions about this topic during campus tours.

The post mocks the excessive interest in bathrooms, noting there are four things about which to be certain: "1) The bathrooms are coed. 2) The bathrooms do not have locks on them. 3) Yes, two people may very well be showering in the same bathroom at the same time. 4) Nobody cares. That's right guys, if you get into MIT there's a high likelihood that you'll get to stand 6 inches away from a naked senior on just your first or second day here! That goes for you too ladies, naked guys standing just 6 inches away! Oo la la!"

Snively's discussion of the topic -- including authentic, G-rated photographs -- discusses how the bathrooms are set up and offers key rules. (Knocking is important). And comments posted suggest that many MIT students get questions from their family members about the topic, and chuckle at the interest.

The article concludes: "From my experience, there are so many things at MIT that are important, difficult, and take adjusting to, worrying about bathrooms just isn't that critical. We're grown ups now, just be civil and polite and everybody gets along alright. You may not be used to having to share a bathroom with a girl or a guy, but you'll find that very little changes (except the length of the hair you find in the shower), so don't sweat the small stuff and worry more about, well, anything, more than bathrooms at MIT."

- Scott Jaschik

IWF in the News: The Big Question: Should Liberals Scuttle Senate Health Deal?

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:54:00 EST

The Hill

Some of the nation's top political commentators, legislators and intellectuals offer some insight into the biggest question burning up the blogosphere today.Today's question:

Howard Dean said yesterday that "the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate [healthcare] bill ... "

Will liberals in Congress take Dean's advice? Should they?

Hal Lewis, professor at UC Santa Barbara, said:

No one should ever take Howard Dean's advice, even when he accidentally happens to be right. As for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid taking anyone's advice, you must be kidding.

Brian Katulis, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said:

Liberals aren't likely to follow Howard Dean's advice as a whole - some will, some won't, and in the end something that is less than half of a loaf will pass. People will forget what the months of debate were all about, and the media will help the Obama administration trumpet its first year in office successes. If liberals in Congress wanted to stand for something, then they could at least stand by their own words - but I don't see that happening in any organized fashion anytime soon.

Michael Cannon, director of Health Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, said:

Now that the "public option" is dead, both the Left and the Right should be able to agree: the Senate bill is nothing but a $450 billion bailout of the private insurance companies.

In fact, the bailout may be several multiples of that figure.

That $450 billion just represents checks that the Treasury would write to private insurance companies. The Reid bill would also force nearly every U.S. citizen to fork over cash to the private insurance companies - no matter how lousy a deal they offer. A recent CBO memo reveals that Reid has been meticulously working behind closed doors to conceal the full cost of his private-insurer bailout.

The Left and the Right should insist that Reid produce a complete CBO score that reveals the full cost of his bill's private-insurer bailout - in particular, the cost of the individual and employer mandates.

Left-wing Democrats will follow their own consciences when deciding how to vote. But they should force Reid to be honest about what he's asking them to swallow.

Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist, said:

There's a lot of suffering out here, including people who lack healthcare coverage, lots more every day.

People of good conscience are working together to get the best deal for reform, it's all hands on deck.

I'd like to remind all Senators, in particular, to vote their conscience, to relieve the suffering of many. Put the country first.

John Feehery, Pundits Blog contributor, said:

Yes....by all means yes. Liberals should kill this bill. if it becomes law, the democrats will lose their majorities. This is bad politics for the liberal majority, so they should kill it, and pass something less ambitious and move on to other things.

Justin Raimondo, editorial director for Antiwar.com, said:

They won't take his advice, but they should. Once Americans find out that they have to buy health insurance, and will be fined for not doing so, they will expect some compensating benefit. When they find out there's none, they are going to be extremely pissed off. And then the 2010 backlash is going to be even bigger than it might already be.

John F. McManus, president of the John Birch Society, said:

The advice given the Senate by Howard Dean is precisely what should be done. The healthcare bill is a monstrous piece of legislation that is unconstitutional, hugely expensive, and remarkably threatening to the best healthcare system in the world. While the recommendation given by Dean is surprising coming from him, let's remember that a stopped clock registers the correct time twice each day. He's correct in this instance and his recommendation should be acted upon favorably.

Michelle D. Bernard, president & CEO of the Independent Women's Forum, said:

Liberals Will Ignore Dean and Trust that Government Will Expand on its Own

A growing number of liberals seem to have accepted the idea that passing a health care reform bill - no matter what's in it and what's not - is their top, indeed their only, priority. Let's face it, no one knows what's in the latest iteration of the Senate legislation, and even if all is revealed soon, there is hardly enough time for Senators to consider seriously the many consequences, intended and unintended, of the provisions in this two thousand plus page legislation.

Liberals who previously had suggested that they might not support a bill that didn't contain a "public option" or an equivalent seem to have decided that it's best to pass this monstrosity and trust that its regulations and mandates will further cripple private insurance and increase public support for a single payer system. And that may be a sound strategy for them, even if it's disastrous for the American public.

Liberals should listen to Howard Dean. This hastily crafted bill (which is increasingly a patchwork of political favors cobbled together with the one goal of buying 60 votes) should be recognized as a mistake regardless of your ideology.

IWF in the News: Tiger Woods and the Democrats

info@iwf.org (Heather R. Higgins) — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:50:00 EST

The National Review

For years, golf has been touted as a growing market: Any product, business, or contract that was golf-related was supposed to be a sure thing.

But it wasn't really golf. It was Tiger.

When Woods had to miss months of competition last season because of his knee injury, TV viewership of golf events dropped by nearly 50 percent.

People hadn't bought golf; they'd bought Tiger. Woods spoke to their hopes and aspirations: His was a success story marked with grace, graciousness, and conservative values. Yet the reality of his life couldn't have been more different, and people are now looking at the ever-growing procession of girlfriends and saying, "Where did these come from?!?" The yuck factor has gotten pretty high, and it is not just Tiger, but golf itself, with all its self-deluded premises, that will take the hit.

Democrats are just starting to realize they've made the same mistake. They thought the 2008 election meant people bought the ideas of the Left. In fact, voters were both rejecting various policies of the last eight years - the Iraq War, runaway government spending, and so on - and embracing a fill-in-the-blank-slate version of "hope" and "change" embodied by Barack Obama.

But now that people have seen the pork-filled stimulus bill, the economy-ravaging prospects of cap-and-trade, and the authoritarian nightmare of government-run health care, they are saying, "Where did these come from? This is not what I bought." Like Tiger's many girlfriends, the policies that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid hope to pass reflect reality, but they are not at all what people fell in love with or wanted to see.

Now Democrats have a choice. The Left is demanding they pass something, anything, to mobilize their base for 2010, claiming that the party lost seats in 1994 because its voters were dispirited by the failure to pass HillaryCare. But choosing to pass health care now is rather like saying to Tiger, "Go have another fling - heck, have several! You've already made your money and can afford to be yourself. The hell with public reaction; the public will get used to it."

Tiger is smarter than that, as are his sponsors, who know that the damage done is almost irreversible. Salvaging the image of "Tiger" will requires huge mea culpas and timeouts. Whether motivated by his family or his future, he's publicly sworn off the women and is trying to be what he sold himself as, both to the public and to his wife. That's the only way he might be able to regain some of the critical trust that he squandered. And that's the plan of a man who doesn't have to face re-election next year.

Democrats seem to be figuring out how dangerous the path they have chosen might be. Many now view their health-care plan as politically suicidal. More sober campaign strategists might suggest that, if Democrats don't pass this legislation, liberals can be motivated to turn out to elect more liberals as part of their caucus, while moderates and independents will be grateful that they went back to the drawing board, and Republicans will find that a key issue that motivates their own base is much diminished.

By contrast, if Democrats do pass legislation that more than 50 percent of Americans reject (many of them intensely), the Republican turnout will be extraordinary. And those Republicans will be joined by furious independents who feel betrayed that the man and the party they elected turned out to be something very different from how they were advertised.

We'll soon learn if Democrats are willing to change their ways so that they can salvage the public's trust, or if they are willing to sacrifice their credibility for years to come.

- Heather R. Higgins is a senior fellow at the Independent Women's Voice and an erratic but enthusiastic golfer.

IWF in the News: The Big Question: Should Obama Focus on Black Jobless Rate?

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:11:00 EST

The Hill

Should President Barack Obama develop a plan to address unemployment among African-Americans as suggested by some members of the Congressional Black Caucus?

Julian Bond, former president of the NAACP, said:

Yes. Black joblessness typically is twice the white rate and signals deep distress in black communities. As a "special" problem it deserves a 'special' and targeted solution.

Michelle Bernard, president of the Independent Women's Forum, said:

The president needs to focus on jobs for everyone

Creating jobs and lowering unemployment for everyone should be the president's top priority. Yes, the unemployment rate is even more alarming than that of the general public, but the solution - creating private-sector, sustainable jobs - will come from the same policies that promote economic growth and jobs for everyone.

The administration should focus on reducing barriers to employment; they could start by lowering taxes or creating deductions specifically for new hires. The administration thus far has failed to promote free trade agreements, but liberalizing trade would be one of the best ways to encourage growth and create jobs (without adding to our deficits). And while they are at it, the administration should tell Congress to forget creating another trillion-dollar healthcare entitlement program, which will add to our already mounting debt and could further stifle job creation, and promise not to pursue a cap-and-trade program which would be another job killer.

The president shouldn't target job creation toward specific groups, but should make spurring private employment across the board his administration's No. 1 priority.

Michael J. Wilson, national director of Americans for Democratic Action, said:

We need a massive jobs program to deal with the 17.2% unemployment rate (not the 10% fiction which excludes tens of thousands of unemployed workers for bureaucratic reasons). And there is no way that a massive jobs program won't have an impact on the African American community where the real rate is 24.7%. The disparate impact faced by some populations in the Great Recession is for a wide variety of factors including race, age, geographical locale and occupation. But to ignore the addition of higher unemployment to the extreme poverty that existed in many communities prior to the recession is to be more than "color blind"; it is to ignore the historic challenges of poverty that our nation still faces. Some of us more than others.

Bill Press, political commentator, said:

The Congressional Black Caucus is right. Unemployment has hit the minority community especially hard and should get special attention from the Obama administration. As Congresswoman Barbara Lee argues, the best way to address it is by directing leftover TARP funds to new construction jobs that can start immediately.

Justin Raimondo, editorial director of AntiWar.com, said:

I see nothing wrong with that, but I don't think Obama understands what creates productive jobs, as opposed to government jobs, make-work "jobs," and military-related jobs. So right there you have a major problem. Our economic problems are only going to get worse, and Obama is going to get the blame - rightly, I believe - because his economic ideas are simply the same old pedestrian Keynesian nonsense, which has been disproven time and again, and which led to the present crisis in the first place.

African-American unemployment, however, has deeper roots, which I think people like Bill Cosby and Shelby Steele have addressed. What I think would be effective is for the president to market himself - yes, I know that's an odd formulation - as a role model. I mean, this guy is the president, he's African-American, and only he is in a position to really take on the culture of failure that is really at the core of the problem of black unemployment. To go out there and say: Achievement is cool, learning is cool, getting good grades is cool - and the whole "gangsta/thug" mentality is wrong, wrong, wrong. And not just do it on occasion, but constantly drum this message into his public persona. That's what's needed.

Major educational reforms are required, and yet the powerful teachers' unions are blocking them. If Obama would take these people on, and redefine teaching as much more than an economic sinecure, that would do a lot of good. We need to liberate schools, rather than Afghanistan or Iraq, and break the back of the pedagogical bureaucracy, which has a stranglehold on the system. We have such a wealth of untapped resources in this country, and yet the "credentialism" inherent in the bureaucracy has made it impossible to hook up with this tremendous resource. I would love to volunteer my skills in the public schools, and yet I am prevented from doing so because we have a government-granted monopoly that doesn't allow for competition: as in all government-related and -funded institutions, innovation is stifled, the market is abolished, and regimentation is the rule.

How about courses in economics that teach students how to manage their own finances? Why not have courses in entrepreneurship? In short, why not prepare students for life as it is actually lived, rather than pushing staid "academic" programs that don't suit the majority of students, whatever their race?

Again, the rigid thinking that underlies eductional "theory" and practice is just a reflection of the monopolistic conditions that prevail in this realm. Get rid of that, and you've unleashed the creative power and self-generated self-sustaining quest for useful knowledge that is inherent in all human beings.

John F. McManus, president of the John Birch Society, said:

The president's plan to address unemployment should be to have government get out of the way of those who want to produce goods. He shouldn't favor any particular ethnic group. America was built by entrepreneurs who didn't face the onerous taxation, regulations and controls that stifle our nation's producers today. History confirms that there is no other way to proceed for long-term solutions to the current economic crisis.

Dean Baker, Co-Drirector of the Center for Economic and Policy Research , said:

This is a question as to whether President Obama is willing to take some political risk to do what is clearly right on economic and moral grounds. There are pockets of the country, like Detroit, where the unemployment rate is 25 percent or higher. For young minorities in these areas, the unemployment rate is near 50 percent. Even if we had some very successful jobs program for the country as a whole, young people in these areas would still find it almost impossible to get a job.

This means that if we don't have jobs programs specifically targeted to these pockets of high unemployment, many young people a disproportionate share of whom are African American, may go years with no job opportunities. In many cases, these people may never get back on their feet again even when the economy recovers. Years of prolonged unemployment may not only ruin their lives, but also the lives of their kids.

For this reason, it should just be commonsense to have jobs programs for the hardest hit areas. Workers can get paid to do tasks that may involve little training, such as cleaning up parks or painting public buildings, but ideally they can also be given the opportunity to develop skills that can open the door to higher paying jobs. Much of this may end up being wasteful in the sense that the work may produce much of value, but there is nothing more wasteful than seeing hundreds of thousands of young people shut out from opportunity because the people who run the economy messed up on their job.

Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT, said:

Once more, President. Obama has been given the golden opportunity to boost his popularity. He could simply say no, and maintain that the time is past for targeting specific racial groups.

Bernie Quigley, political commentator, said:

I wouldn't rule it out. They should focus where there is need and potential for growth to ride a wave of ascending economy; otherwise the money will be wasted. The money being spent here in northern New Hampshire does not seem to be having any effect. We are already at 2 percent unemployment and have a fairly benign economy. Jesse Jackson's and members of the Black Caucus's suggestion that money go to African-Americans does makes sense where there is a mature and useful African-American workforce like in Chicago, which can be advanced and amended and integrated into the greater economy. By which I mean that the spending should be regionalized to focus on need and potential. There should also be some reality-based thinking about triaging the economy. I grew up in Fall River, Mass., where there were over a hundred empty mills that had gone out of business in the Great Depression. Years later, many of the buildings went to practical secondary usage but the previous reality of immigrant labor working in cotton mills was over. The angel had passed and it did not come back. Detroit might be in the same situation today. Attempting to bring it back might be futile when there are other growth opportunities nearby. This entire project needs a face and it doesn't have one. Colin Powell's might work.

Hal Lewis, physicist and professor at UC Santa Barbara, said

For better or worse, Obama is President of the United States, black, white, and purple. If he starts down the road of discrimination he will lose even the minority of white votes that he now gets.

IWF in the News: In Other Words: Preschool Plans Oversold, Unproven and Unrealistic

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:05:00 EST

cwfa.org

State Sen. Tom Dempster of Sioux Falls continually repeats that no one questions the importance of preschool in a child's development, stating, "No one can doubt that investments in early education do for a child or the society in which they grow." (Nov. 27; "In Other Words: State can't afford not to fund preschool for low-income kids.")

By: Cindy Flakoll, Concerned Women of America

Click here for a direct link to the article.

State Sen. Tom Dempster of Sioux Falls continually repeats that no one questions the importance of preschool in a child's development, stating, "No one can doubt that investments in early education do for a child or the society in which they grow." (Nov. 27; "In Other Words: State can't afford not to fund preschool for low-income kids.")

But he is incorrect. Concerned Women for America and others have been questioning his plan for "investments" since 2003, both in testimony in Pierre and in numerous publications - such as letters to the editor; newsletters, blogs and opinion editorials like this one.

Why? A research sampling evidences the need to question the perceived benefit of universal preschool.

For example:

Dr. David Elkind, Tufts University child development professor and author of "The Hurried Child," explains: "Children who receive academic instruction too early - generally before age 6 or 7 - are often put at risk for no apparent gain. By attempting to teach the wrong things at the wrong time, early instruction can permanently damage a child's self-esteem, reduce a child's natural eagerness to learn and block a child's natural gifts and talents. ...There is no evidence that such early instruction has lasting benefits and considerable evidence that it can do lasting harm."
Headstart founder and longtime academic preschool advocate Edward Zeigler stated: "This is not the first time universal preschool ... has been proposed. ...The arguments in favor of preschool were that it would reduce school failure, lower dropout rates, increase test scores and produce a generation of more competent high school graduates. ... Preschool education will achieve none of these results."
Concerned Women for America reported psychologist Dr. Ken Madig is convinced that when young children spend too much time away from parents, "An increasing number of children suffer a ‘character disturbance' called Antisocial Personality Disorder (APDP). The symptoms of ADP include "emotional detachment and an uncontrollable inner rage."
Carrie Lukas, of the Independent Women's Forum, on Nov. 9 referenced a 2006 Education Week Analysis showed that Oklahoma and Georgia, states implementing and universal preschool over a decade ago, are now among the 10 states making the least progress on national standardized tests. Oklahoma has actually lost ground. South Dakota, with no universal governmental funded programs, continues to exhibit fourth grade scores near the top.
Minnesota, home of Dr. Art Rolnick of Minneapolis Federal Reserve, who makes several trips here annually advocating preschool "investments," resides in a state that fails to fully fund all-day kindergarten, much less universal preschool.

The good senator knows how many bills our state legislators have killed (at least six) since he began advocating the eventual sweeping of all 3- and 4-year-olds into the public schools, paid for by your tax dollars, thank you.

"No child or parent would ever be required to participate," he stated.

So he predicts the future? If pre-K is so necessary, why would he deny any child the opportunity? Universal preschool certainly could become mandatory with subsequent penalties for parents who choose not to send their children.

Sen. Dempster needs to embrace the fact that surveys consistently show markedly lukewarm support for expanded tax-paid subsidies for early childcare, but tremendous enthusiasm for parent-oriented tax breaks to assist parents in raising preschool age children at home or in choosing care-giving situations not under the government's thumb. Pew Center's 2007 poll showed that only 11 percent of mothers prefer full-time work.

Former Education Secretary Melmer estimated at least a $50 million price-tag just to place all South Dakota 4-year olds in public school preschool. Sen. Dempster also wants 3-year olds there.

Universal preschool: Overestimated and unproven. Oversold and unrealistic.

Cindy Flakoll, of New Holland, represents a group called Concerned Women of America.

In Other Words features opinions from contributors who have areas of special interest or expertise. Material should not exceed 600 words and can be sent to The Daily Republic, 120 S. Lawler St., Mitchell, S.D., 57301, or emailed to dailynews@mitchellrepublic.com. Not all submitted material will be used.

IWF in the News: Washington, D.C. Based Non-Profit Teaching Program ABCTE Names Three to Board of Directors

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:09:00 EST

earthtimes.org

D.C. based education non-profit American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence (ABCTE) names Michelle Bernard, president and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum (IWF) and an MSNBC political analyst; Frederick M. Hess, Director of Education Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute; and Doug Mesecar, Vice President for Scholastic, to its board of directors.

(Vocus) -- The American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence, a non-profit, Washington, D.C. based teaching certification program, has named three new members to its board of directors.

Joining the ABCTE board were Michelle Bernard, president and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum (IWF) and an MSNBC political analyst; Frederick M. Hess, Director of Education Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI); and Doug Mesecar, Vice President for Scholastic.

Bernard, an attorney by training, is a regular panelist on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews and The McLaughlin Group. She is a Sunday columnist with The Examiner and a political commentator for The Hill's Congress Blog. Bernard is the author of Women's Progress: How Women are Wealthier, Healthier, and More Independent than Ever Before. She has spoken on topics including education reform and school choice. Bernard recently hosted the live town hall About Our Children, featuring Bill Cosby, on MSNBC.

Hess, a former public high school social studies teacher, has authored several books and taught education and policy at universities including Georgetown, Harvard, Rice, the University of Virginia, and the University of Pennsylvania. He is executive editor of Education Next and a faculty associate with Harvard's Program on Education Policy and Governance. Hess also serves on the board of directors for the National Association of Charter School Authorizers and on the review board for the Broad Prize in Urban Education.

Mesecar oversees the editorial, marketing and sales efforts for Scholastic's suite of math products and is involved in Scholastic's long-term math strategy and new product development. Prior to joining Scholastic, Mesecar served in the U.S. Department of Education as Assistant Deputy Secretary, Office of Innovation and Improvement. There he oversaw efforts to make strategic investments in promising educational practices. Mesecar oversaw the administration of over 28 grant programs related to education improvement, school choice, teacher quality and technology. Before coming to Washington, Mesecar worked as a fifth grade teacher in Colorado.

"Our organization is in the midst of a tremendous period of growth. The experience and knowledge these individuals bring to our board will only further strengthen our organization as we work to ensure that every student has a great teacher," said ABCTE CEO David Saba.

ABCTE has issued over 2,000 teaching certifications to-date, with a focus on mid-career professionals. The organization offers certification in ten subjects including the high-need areas of math, science and special education. The program is currently accepted by nine states for public schools: Florida, Idaho, Missouri, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Utah. Many charter schools and private schools in other parts of the country also accept ABCTE certification.

ABCTE The American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence is a non-profit organization, dedicated to recruiting, preparing, certifying and supporting dedicated professionals to improve student achievement through quality teaching. ABCTE is accepted in nine states and offers an innovative teacher preparation and certification program for highly knowledgeable individuals who want to change careers and become teachers. For more information, please visit www.abcte.org.

IWF in the News: This Health Bill Will Raise, Not Lower, Health Care Spending

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 09:25:00 EST

The National Review

A December 8th Associated Press item by David Espo reports:

At its core, the legislation would expand health care to millions who lack it, ban insurance companies from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and rein in the rise of health care spending nationally.

The first two items are fine, but the last assertion on cost control is just plain false. Much of the media bought Democrats spin that the recent Congressional Budget Office analysis of the Senate bill showed that proposed health care changes are somehow fiscally responsible. Yet what the CBO actually reported was that if all of the measures are fully enacted (including hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare spending) then the legislation would reduce the deficit. But only because the legislation would raise revenue (mostly through higher taxes) to cover the larger bill. The CBO writes:

In the decade after 2019, the gross cost of the coverage expansion would probably exceed 1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), but the added revenues and cost savings would probably be greater.

In other words, the costs associated with expanding coverage are more than 1 percent of GDP, which means we will be spending more, not less, on health care. You hardly need to read through a CBO report to understand that extending health insurance to another 30 million people, and creating requirements for what must be covered under all insurance policies, is an expensive under-taking.

IWF in the News: The Big Question: Will the Jobs Summit Help or Hurt Obama?

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:22:00 EST

The Hill

Some of the nation's top political commentators, legislators and intellectuals offer some insight into the biggest question burning up the blogosphere today.

Today's question:

Will today's jobs summit help President Barack Obama politically or highlight a weakness?

Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.) said:

After 36 years in Washington I can't be accused of being naive, but I think the point of a job summit is to get jobs. It may highlight a weakness, but he's going to do everything he can, and not for political reasons.

The hardest thing in the world is to come home to your spouse and kids and say you lost your job. I know the president feels that, I feel that, and every senator feels that. This is a tragedy. If I were President of the United States right now, my number-one concern would be getting more jobs. If I could get a bunch of people together to help me get jobs and help me politically, I'd do it, and you'd do it to. And I assume that's what the president's doing today.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (D-Alaska) said:

I don't hold a lot of hope for the job summit.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) said

I didn't hear how the summit is structured, but I can say it is very important for this administration and for Congress to focus on job creation. Economist believe the recession is over, but that doesn't mean balloons are popping on Main Street -- actually, the opposite is happening. We've got to focus on creating jobs on Main Street and the way to do that is with strategic policy shifted to helping small businesses and entrepreneurs. That is what I will contribute to the job summit as chair of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee.

I don't see how Obama can be hurt by it. I think it's good he's letting the American people know he knows our challenge is to create more jobs at home. There are exciting opportunities in this healthcare bill that will create opportunities for lots of entrepreneurs...and there are extraordinary opportunities in natural gas. If we can connect the jobs piece to the energy piece -- I think the president can do that, and it will be a very good victory for him.

Michelle D. Bernard, president and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum, said:

The "Jobs Summit" isn't going to make a difference to President Obama's political fortunes. Unemployed Americans aren't going to feel better just because the president has shown that he's concerned about the job situation, but he also won't be hurt by reminding the public of a "weakness"--everyone is plenty aware of the dismal economy and alarming number of un- and under-employed.

The president and the congressional majority will be judged in the next election on their ability to actually improve the economy. These politicians should waste little time on photo ops and other PR stunts. They need to focus exclusively on advancing policies that will encourage private sector hiring (reducing regulations, streamlining the tax code, and signing new free trade agreements would be a place to start). This isn't something you can fake. The American people want -- and will judge their leaders on -- the results.

Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist and a Pundits Blog contributor, said:

People who look at this seriously will note that we now have an Administration which takes job creation seriously.

Armstrong Williams, Pundits Blog contributor, said:

The American public is now bracing for another smack in the face, with the $787 billion stimulus package promised to create 3 million jobs over two years. The President's job summit today is just another disappointment to Americans who fell for his rhetoric and drank the kool-aid. Many of whom thought their hard earned tax dollars were going to be spent on alleviating their hardships only to find their dilemma is dramatically worst.

It is obvious unclear exactly how our President will deliver on his pledge, or whom or what will benefit from this Public Relations summit. But one thing is clear: the usual suspect is the enemy -private industry. Although senior advisor to the administration, Valerie Jarrett, claims they need the cooperation of the private industry, they are definitely blocking major trade associations. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is expected to support export increasing policy, was never invited to participate. Just unbelievable!

But, of course the unions will be well represented at today's highly touted event. Reality check: those sane Americans that still have a basic understanding of economics 101 realize that the private industry with unions is private in name only. When bureaucracy is incorporated into the industry equation, market forces are inhibited from playing out. Therefore, one has to assert that union jobs and government jobs are without question one in the same.

As this drama worsens with each changing scene, the summit will supposedly revive failing aspects of the economy where money from the stimulus package was designated for spending. Have you now reached the conclusion that the American people deserve to know what happened to the $787 billion stimulus package?

Isn't it ironic that the Obama administration continues to recklessly spend the tax payers dollars as fuel to fuel a fire that will only keep those closest to this administration warm.

Dean Baker, Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said:

The key point to keep in mind is that there are no elections right now. In fact, there are no elections for another 11 months. What is going to matter for Obama and the Democrats is what the economy looks like in November, not what people write about the jobs summit today. For most people, this will mean jobs.

Jobs are the measure of the economy for the vast majority of the American people. They don't see GDP growth. This is a statistic collected by bureaucrats in the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

While stock market movements are the economy for the small group of relatively well-off people who comprise the country's punditry, in reality, they have very little to do with the economy. A relatively small segment of the population has any substantial stock holdings so most people will get little or no benefit from an increase in stock prices. The market itself fluctuates hugely for reasons that have nothing to do with the strength of the economy. Discussions of the stock market are probably better placed on the sports pages than in an analysis of the economy.

For most people, the economy means jobs. If the country sees the jobs being created by November, they will be in a much better mood toward the party in power. On the other hand, the baseline projections from the Congressional Budget Office, the Federal Reserve Board, and most private forecasters show the unemployment rate continuing to rise well into 2010. While it may peak before November, any improvement by election day will be too small for anyone to notice.

There are actions that President Obama and Congress can take. The most obvious is using work-sharing tax credits to get companies to have people work shorter hours rather than laying off workers. This has worked incredibly well in Germany, where there has been no increase in unemployment, even though their downturn was steeper than ours.

There are 2 million workers laid off each month. If work-sharing tax credits (like one proposed by Representative Conyers) can reduce this figure by 10 percent, or 200,000 a month, it would be the equivalent of generating almost 2.5 million new jobs by election day.

There are things that can be done to create jobs and improve the economy. President Obama and Congress just have to stop letting the Washington punditry scare them.

Bill Press, host of the Bill Press Show, said:

First and foremost, the "Jobs Summit" is important for America. The official unemployment may be 10.2 percent, the actual rate is closer to 18 percent. Almost two out of 10 American families see no paycheck in sight. That must be turned around if we are ever going to see any real economic recovery. As for Obama... If actions follow words, if new jobs are created, if unemployment starts to fall, it will be a big boost to Obama and Democrats in 2010. If not, there'll be hell to pay.

John F. McManus, president of The John Birch Society, said:

Meaningful jobs are created by manufacturers, not by governments. In fact, wealth should be known as productivity, the creation of goods from the raw materials of the earth. A nation is wealthy when its people are engaged in manufacturing, but America has lost close to half its manufacturing jobs during the past three decades. The chief impediment to wealth production is always government -- with its taxation and regulatory burdens. Most of these impediments are not faced in such competitors as China. If Mr. Obama does not lead an effort to reverse government's job-destroying policies, he should certainly be hurt politically. But, sadly, fewer and fewer Americans realize that government is the real reason why job are disappearing here at home.

Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com, said:

The study of history teaches us there is very little that is new under the sun - and that goes for "job summits."

There are two ways to deal with the economic depression - and it is a depression, not a recession, when the real rate of unemployment hits over 10 percent, as it has. The first is the classical laissez-faire solution: Let the bubble burst, and the market will liquidate the inflated estimates of value that have been pumped up by the arbitrary expansion of bank credit (engineered by the Federal Reserve). This method has been rejected by the present administration, as well as the previous one, in pursuit of the second solution, which is massive government intervention designed to re-inflate the bubble. Readers may be surprised to learn that the administration of Herbert Hoover, often condemned as standing by and doing nothing as the first Great Depression collapsed the U.S. economy, chose the same course: that is, government intervention. Aside from initiating a massive public works program, one of the first things the Hoover administration did was to inaugurate a - you guessed it! - Jobs Summit. As the economist Murray N. Rothbard described it in America's Great Depression:

"All the great industrial leaders of the country were there, including such men as Henry Ford, Julius Rosenwald, Walter Teagle of Standard Oil, Matthew Sloan, Owen D. Young, Edward Grace, Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., Pierre DuPont, and William Butterworth. The businessmen asked Hoover to stimulate the cooperation of government and industry. Hoover pointed out to them that unemployment had already reached two to three million, that a long depression might ensue, and that wages must be kept up! Hoover explained that immediate "liquidation" of labor had been the industrial policy of previous depressions; that his every instinct was opposed to both the term and the policy, for labor was not a commodity: it represented human homes. . . . Moreover, from an economic viewpoint such action would deepen the depression by suddenly reducing purchasing power."

The idea was to make this kind of cooperation between government and business appear "voluntary," but the implicit threat of coercion was ever present. If the barons of industry didn't keep wages up, and start investing in new projects, the government would force their hand. Hoover held a series of such "job summits," which all resulted in declarations from the assembled industrial leaders - including union chieftains - that they would do their "patriotic" duty to re-inflate the economy so that "great hardship and economic and social difficulties would be avoided," as one such declaration read. Yet it was all to no avail, as we now know: the Depression only deepened, in part due to the very efforts Hoover was so instrumental in initiating. The malinvesttment occasioned by the bubble economy had to be sweated out, or otherwise liquidated - it could not be ignored. So, good luck with that "Jobs Summit," Mr. Obama - because you're going to need it.

Tad DeHaven, budget analyst at The Cato Institute, said:

The so-called "jobs summit" is more political theater. Scheduled to attend are economists, union leaders and business leaders who supported the president's failed stimulus package and who will simply recommend more government spending. In other words, the event isn't a jobs summit, it's an echo chamber.

It bears repeating that the government cannot simply wave a magic wand and "create" jobs. Every dime the government spends trying to boost employment has to be taxed or borrowed out of economy. There is no free lunch.

Perhaps the White House should start listening to the entrepreneurs and businesses shedding employees or not hiring because they're worried about the administration's agenda. Potential health care mandates, higher energy costs due to climate change legislation, new burdensome regulations, and potential tax increases to pay for the government's rising debt could make hiring cost prohibitive.

Anna Burger, secretary-treasurer of SEIU, said:

Our jobs crisis didn't happen overnight. And it didn't happen by accident.   

We're paying the price for a system that for too long valued wealth over work, ignored the warning signs of crisis, and failed to meet the new challenges of the 21st century. Eighty years ago, we found ourselves facing similar challenges. A reckless financial system crashed our economy -- leaving millions without jobs, without homes, and without hope.   But we know what happened next.   President Roosevelt created the New Deal and he did it by empowering Frances Perkins to shake things up across government and business. She worked around the clock to not only put people back to work -- but to build an entirely new economy.   She focused on innovative public works programs to put millions of people back to work quickly and efficiently. And she ensured workers could share in the productivity of a growing new economy by protecting their freedom to join unions-laying the foundation for the greatest middle class the world has ever seen.

If we are going to come out of our current crisis stronger and better prepared for the challenges of a 21st century economy, we need someone to take charge, to focus -- 24/7 -- on job creation until we see results.   It's time for President Obama to empower the 21st century Francis Perkins, someone to speak for him and someone who has the authority across government to shake things up. It's time to create a country that works for all of us. And that starts with jobs.  Creating jobs isn't rocket science. We just need the political will, courage and determination to make it happen.   Now it's time to get to work.

We need to extend the safety net, including increasing unemployment insurance and expanding work sharing programs to provide unemployment benefits for reduced hours of work. and
We need to use TARP funds to increase credit for small businesses.
Federal fiscal relief to states and local governments needs to be expanded to save an anticipated 900,000 jobs and the vital services in our communities.
We need to target the fastest-growing sectors of human services such as child care, in-home services for the elderly and disabled, and other services our communities need through a public jobs program. This will create jobs in the public and private sectors and ensure our communities are healthy, educated, and well cared for.
We need to leverage private investment with public dollars through a Green Bank that will promote energy-efficiency and renewables as a major source of job creation, in both the short and the long term. The jobs we create today will lay the groundwork for the industries of tomorrow.   Expanding the home retrofitting programs begun under the Recovery Act will create good jobs in construction and related industries. Including commercial and public buildings would increase the scope of the program, create high skilled jobs, and protect the planet by reducing demand for energy. By acting now, America can lead the way on green technology.
We must invest in our aging and failing infrastructure by rebuilding our schools, roads and bridges-putting millions to work. An Infrastructure Bank can foster public/private partnerships in developing regional and large scale projects critical for a 21st century economy.
The passage of health care reform will add tens of millions of Americans to the healthcare rolls and create more than a million new and different jobs in healthcare and related industries. We need to ensure our present healthcare workforce is prepared and we need innovative recruitment and training programs to meet this new workforce demand.
We must pass the Employee Free Choice Act to once again protect workers' freedom to form unions and allow them to share in the prosperity of a new 21st century economy.
We need expanded worker training programs on a national scale so that young people are prepared for new industries and workers can the learn skills necessary to compete for new jobs. It's time to coordinate across agency lines and provide flexible lifelong training for the new economy.

We can do this without breaking the bank or increasing the deficit over a ten year period.   It's time for Wall Street and the financial industry to pay back their debt to our society. Wall Street must do its part by paying a speculators tax on their obscene profits and transactions. This tax can fund the entire program over ten years.   This isn't a hard ask. After the trillions in taxpayer investments to bail them out, the excessive profits of firms like Goldman Sachs, and the $150 billion in compensation and bonuses the top six banks plan to dole out this year, this is a small price for Wall Street to pay.

The American people demand action. People like Ferol Wagner, an 81 year old widow who lost her life savings when the market crashed. Like Keith Scribner, who lost his job when a bank liquidated the 60 year old business he worked for. And Maria Guerra, whose brother lost his job, fell behind on his mortgage payments, and had to sign the home Maria helped him purchase over to the bank.

We were together in Chicago recently with thousands of other Americans to demand an end to an economy that puts Wall Street and corporate CEOs ahead of the rest of us. We were there to demand that the leaders we elected work 24/7 to create the relief our families need.

We can solve this crisis. We can right the wrongs of our economy.   But only with real focus and leadership that ensures everyone does their part.   And only if we get to work today.

IWF in the News: The Big Question: Will Obama's Speech Win Support for the War?

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:01:00 EST

The Hill

Some of the nation's top political commentators, legislators and intellectuals offer some insight into the biggest question burning up the blogosphere today.

Today's question:

Jon Soltz, Iraq War Veteran and Chairman of VoteVets.org, said:

Will President Barack Obama's speech boost public support for the war in Afghanistan?

Any time a President rallies a nation, it will receive initial support. But for the President to see that support continue, he has to answer some questions he didn't address last night - especially on issues of how this war will affect our Armed Forces and the people who serve in them. For instance, early in his administration, the President promised to end Stop Loss, increase Dwell Time (the amount of time home between deployments), and see deployments not go longer than the traditional 1 year maximum. The strategy and timeline he set out last night seems to put that all in jeopardy. With suicide, PTSD, and divorce rates in the military at all-time highs, how does the President reconcile the strain his strategy places on our men and women? How can he guarantee he won't break our force? Until he settles those issues, and others, he risks seeing support quickly deteriorate as questions mount.

Michelle D. Bernard, President & CEO of the Independent Women's Forum, said:

Only An Improved Situation on the Ground Will Significantly Change Attitudes About the War

I'm relieved that President Obama decided to recommitted the United States to creating a stable, secure Afghanistan. As the primary arena for today's War on Terror, Afghanistan's stability is important for U.S. security, and after years of engagement in the country, it's America's duty not to abandon the Afghan people - particularly Afghan women - to a future of chaos and despotic rule.

President Obama's speech likely won't change many opinions about whether or not we should remain engaged in Afghanistan. Yet this President would be wise to consider his predecessor's experience. Support for the War in Iraq could hardly have been lower when President Bush committed to the surge strategy. Yet when Iraq became more secure, the issue became less radioactive.

Similarly, the public's opinion of the war in Afghanistan could certainly change if our prospects for a positive outcome improve. It's in the President's interests -- both political and with regards to his fundamental duty as Commander-in-Chief to protect and defend the country -- to push for victory in Afghanistan. Timetables for withdrawal are unwise, and will suggest to the enemy that they just need to outlast us. These timetables are unlikely to make opponents of the war any more comfortable about his decision, and may undermine chances for success. The President needs to recognize that his best hope in winning this issue politically is to win the battle on the ground.

Cheri Jacobus, Pundits Blog contributor, said:

For a man who has been so very committed to victory when it comes to his own political campaigns, President Barack Obama conveyed little of that same commitment to victory in Afghanistan with this speech last night at West Point.

America was already convinced we need more boots on the ground in Afghanistan, but Obama now has us all a bit nervous.

Rather than operating from a position of strength and certainty, Obama seems to have merely acquiesced to the request by General Stanley McChrystal. His delay and equivocating thus compromises confidence in what is unquestionably the most important and impactful decision of his presidency to date.

Obama's "dithering" on Afghanistan telegraphs to Americans, Al Qaeda and the Taliban, as well as those around the globe who may doubt or be tempted to test American strength under the new-ish president, that he is not altogether comfortable in his role as Commander-In-Chief and the job requirement to make troop level decisions. Can he make even bigger, tougher decisions on war if the need arises? Can he do so in a timely fashion that enhances our chances for success and security rather than indecisive meandering resulting in a split decision in an attempt to placate political factions here at home?

Craig Newmark, founder of Craiglist, said:

Well, people are really glad to hear from a president who's making deliberate, smart decisions, hearing all sides, then acting decisively. In terms of public support, that matters. When given the facts, people prefer a president who faces reality.

Christopher A. Preble, director of Foreign Policy Studies at The Cato Institute, said:

President Obama's speech was aimed squarely at the middle ground. Politically, the talk of a withdrawal date is necessary to quell American fears of an open-ended mission, already the longest war in American history. Strategically, he hopes to turn the military tide against the Taliban, stiffen the resolve of the Afghans, the Pakistanis and our NATO allies.

The president's problem -- and it is now America's problem -- is that this is a very tall order, and one that will not to be made easier by the introduction of an additional 30,000 troops. Defense Secretary Gates fixed on the dilemma several weeks ago when he pondered aloud: "How do we signal resolve and at the same time signal to the Afghans and the American people that this is not open-ended?"

It turns out you can't. The president's decision to deepen our commitment to Afghanistan, while simultaneously promising an exit, is ultimately absurd on its face.

While All Americans hope that the mission in Afghanistan turns out well, and have great confidence in the U.S. military, our troops can only do so much with a strategy that is shot full of contradictions and inconsistencies.

Michaeal T. McPhearson, executive director of Veterans for Peace, said:

In general the American people want to believe in their Presidents. We want to believe they have wisdom and knowledge that give them special abilities to solve problems. President Obama communicated his plans for Afghanistan in a well delivered speech. I think the majority of the public, for varying reasons, will give him room to operate for the next 15 to 18 months following his self imposed timeline. Democrats because they want to believe in him and Republicans because they want to see the war policy continued. However, the economy, the death of U.S. troops and the pictures of innocent Afghans may turn opinion and shorten patience quicker than expected. But for now he has time.

Bill Press, host of the "Bill Press Show," said:

Selling a war is always tough, for any president, and President Obama did the best job he could. But I still don't think he'll be successful in convincing the American people that this long war is worth continuing, let alone escalating. We can't afford another eight years in Afghanistan, but it looks like that's where we're heading.

Justin Raimondo, editorial director for Antiwar.com, said

A singularly ineffective speech. As I understand it, we have to fight in Afghanistan, because:

1) We were attacked on 9/11/01 - even though less than one hundred al-Qaeda are in the entire country.

2) The government of Pakistan is being undermined, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons - even though we aren't going into Pakistan, except covertly, but we can't acknowledge that in public.

3) The continental United States is endangered by the presence of jihadists in the region, where attacks on America are being planned - even though the 9/11 attacks were planned and executed in the US, and Hamburg, Germany, where the hijackers lived for years.

John F. McManus, president of The John Birch Society, said:

The speech by President Obama will likely change few minds. Those opposed to the continuation of this undeclared and therefore unconstitutional "war" will remain opposed. Those in favor will, for a time, stay in favor. But sentiment favoring participation in this conflict will continue to wane. The significance of the president starting his speech with authorization for our nation's involvement emanating from NATO and the United Nations is highly significant and should not be overlooked. He certainly didn't cite the U.S. Constitution to justify this "war"! NATO arose in 1949 as a U.N. regional arrangement. The speech added one more reason why the U.S. should withdraw from the U.N. and all its subsidiaries, and why the American people should demand that all U.S. officials get back to adhering to the limitations in the U.S. Constitution.

Mike Ferner, president of Veterans for Peace, said:

Presidential speeches often raise public support for the president's position and it would not be surprising if this one did, too.

However, here's where public support is going now for the war:

A USA Today/Gallup poll asked if people approved or disapproved of the way Obama is handling the situation in Afghanistan and found that in July, 56 percent approved. Last week, 35 percent did. In July, 34 percent disapproved, and last week 55 percent disapproved.

That poll also asked if people thought the situation in Afghanistan was going well or badly? In July, 54 percent said it was going well; last week 32 percent did. In July 43 percent said it was going badly; last week that rose to 66 percent.

CBS' poll numbers were considerably worse news for the administration. Respondents who felt it was going well fell from 36% in July to 23 percent last week and those who thought it's going badly went from 55 percent in July to 69 percent last week. CBS also found that 32 percent wanted troop levels increased in Afghanistan, 20 percent wanted them to stay the same and 39 percent wanted them decreased -- or in other words, to start withdrawing.

So if Obama's speech creates a "bump" in support for the war, it will clearly be bucking the trend. Add to that, the fact that rushing troops into combat -- and there's no other way to describe what he plans -- will mean shorter notices for families. More troops in the field will mean more casualties. Neither of those bode well for maintaining public support.

But notice what's behind the theme Obama repeated several times -- that he made these difficult decisions to protect the "best interests" of the United States, then defined those interests as primarily keeping us safe from additional attacks. By nearly all measures, public support for the war is diminishing -- except in this one area: people's fear and insecurity. Two weeks ago, a CNN poll asked if it was necessary for the U.S. to "keep its troops in Afghanistan NOW to prevent additional acts of terrorism in the U.S." 60 percent answered yes to that question and 39 percent said no. It begins to be a legitimate question if the only way to maintain support for this war is to create a permanently fearful population.

There are obviously many factors determining public support for this war. One not mentioned last night is the level of support among the troops and their families. Over and over I talk with Vietnam veterans who are absolutely incredulous at how today's troops can withstand two, three, four and more combat deployments. One thing that kept many people -- troops and their families -- sane during the Vietnam war was that everybody knew your tour was one year. When you hit that 365th day in most cases you were gone, never having to return. That is not the case now and the psychological toll it is taking has yet to be determined. The big wild card in Obama's deck is this: what will happen when the steadily rising rate of PTSD gets to the point where troops and their families can simply take no more stress?

Besides those above factors I just described, Veterans For Peace is also making a concerted effort to connect the pain and suffering the economic crisis is causing Americans, with the pain and suffering of those directly in harm's way in this war. It's as if the president, when he announced a 50% increase in the troop level in Afghanistan at the same time declared war on the struggling, increasingly desparate people of this country. That is a "fear factor" not as easily predicted or manipulated as the fear of terrorist attack.

John Feehery, Pundits Blog contributor, said:

The President made the right decision on troops but he gave the wrong speech to inspire the American people. He should have looked into the camera, and told the American people straight up that he was sending in more troops because he wanted to stop Islamic terrorists from attacking America. Our troops need reinforcements. They don't need long, self-reverential speeches that seek to score political points.

Bernie Quigley Pundits Blog contributor, said:

No. Predictably, more of the same. The continuing Cheney/Obama incursions in Afghanistan and the east should now be looked at overall as a stimulus or leavening agent that has awakened Islamic identity by varying degree throughout the Islamic world and well across Europe. Secular Islamic women in Europe now weak the hijab - the Islamic scarf - as a symbol on non-Western identity. Muslims now conspicuously pray in the streets of Rome on Ramadan and build minarets in Switzerland. These are natural and instinctive processes of territorialization. In Manchester, England, where the working class was blue-eyed and red haired Catholic and C of E 100 years back much of it is now Islamic. Much of the real work in Europe today is being done by Muslims and the working people invariably inherit the cultural future. Thanks to Cheney/Obama we are seeing today the Islamization of Europe just as we saw the Islamization of Constantinople in 1453 by other means.

IWF in the News: The Big Question: Will Congress Fund a Troop Surge in Afghanistan?

info@iwf.org (Michelle D. Bernard) — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:06:00 EST

The Hill

Some of the nation's top political commentators, legislators and intellectuals offer some insight into the biggest question burning up the blogosphere today.

Today's question:

If President Barack Obama calls for tens of thousands of additional troops in Afghanistan, will the Democratic-led Congress fund this effort?

Ronald Goldfarb, Pundits Blog contributor, said:

One hopes Congress will exercise its constitutional power to control war decisions. But I doubt it will. Sadly, peace, non-war, positions are rare with politicians. We hear constant complaints about too much spending when it concerns healthcare, but none when it comes to killing and maiming our young men and women in the military.

How can we afford this war, politically, economically, morally? No one has made the case that our engagements in Afghanistan will make America safer, or immune from attack. So why are we there?

Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist, said:

The American people are ready for smart, serious decisions about the use of our military, and the Democratic party will support that.

Brian Katulis, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said:

Congress will fund the effort, but it will do it kicking and screaming and after asking a lot of tough questions. Rightly so. After about eight years of insufficient oversight, when Congress was complicit in the Bush administration's strategy-less, no accountability and no end in sight way of fighting wars, we are seeing more scrutiny on this administration's national security decisions.

Congress will hold a series of hearings, ask questions that are aimed at sharpening policies, and perhaps even set clear conditions for additional funding dependent on outcome. That would be a good thing. Though President Obama was right to take the time to deliberate on options, his team still hasn't provided sufficient answers to key questions - like what precise conditions are they setting on assistance to Afghan authorities, how much Pakistan and other key countries are willing to play a more constructive role in advancing stability, and how to pay for the war without passing the costs onto our grandchildren. The metrics for to measure progress developed by the Obama administration are still an unclear mess, and simply saying "we'll know it when we see it" is too glib of an answer when we're sending more Americans into harm's way and spending taxpayers' money.

Michelle D. Bernard, president and CEO of Independent Women's Forum, said:

Congressional Democrats will be in a tough spot if the president calls for additional troops for Afghanistan: They don't want to alienate the far left wing of their base, but also cannot afford to further lose the support of Independents and "Obamacans" and give new life to the image of undisciplined Democrats unwilling to wage a war that the Commander-in-Chief believes saves the national security interests of our nation.

Ultimately, it seems most likely that enough Democrats will join with Republicans (who are most likely to support the president's call for additional troops and funding). They cannot abandon our nation's commander-in-chief.

Paul Kawika Martin, policy and political director of Peace Action, said:

If you were a gambler, you would have to bet the the Democrats will ultimately fund more troops for President Obama. Remember that the Democrats didn't even come close to mustering enough votes to stop the Bush Administration's folly in Iraq, even after finding out that they were lied to and a near-super majority of Americans wanted troops to come home.

Most Democrats in Congress have ceded the debate to the neo-cons that your not supporting the troops if you vote against war funding. This is ludicrous, of course. It's the utmost support of our troops to exercise democracy and vote for policy beliefs. It's the utmost support to vote for the troops to come home. Certainly, during the debate on Iraq, you heard Republican cries of "Where's your patriotism?" to those that voted against funding the war in Iraq. Then, this year, the Republicans voted en masse against supplemental funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because they opposed money for the World Bank.

There are a few courageous Republicans that will most likely vote against funding, including Rep. Walter Jones. He will vote his thought-out policy beliefs, rather than join the Republican Party line that if you don't support more troops than you are weak, unpatriotic and "dithering." Many Republican's will play the worn out partisan card that the Democrats are "weak on defense." And many Democrats haven't figured out that to trump that argument, you need to discuss all of the tools in America's tool box, including economics, aid, development and diplomacy. Reps. Barbara Lee and Jim McGovern have made that wise argument and will vote against war funding.

Chairmen Obey and Murtha provide an interesting twist. Both have said that if we do fund more troops then we must pay for them now, not put the deficit burden on our grandchildren. So far, the near trillion dollars the United States spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been nearly all borrowed from other countries, namely China and Japan. Noble Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard professor Linda Bilmes claims that if you include interest on debt, veterans benefits and other costs to society, then the total costs for the wars could top a staggering $5 trillion to $7 trillion.

Of course, I hope I lose my bet and that enough courageous Democrats and Republicans vote against funding more troops and instead use that money to pay Afghan security forces a livable wage so they are less susceptible to Taliban bribes; to fully fund the National Solidarity Project that helps bring Afghans out of poverty (a root cause of violent extremism); and to increase funding for Afghan-led aid and development that will tackle the 40 percent unemployment rate and 30 percent literacy rate. Lastly, without a comprehensive peace process -- that includes all internal and regional actors like the Taliban, Iran, India, Pakistan and China -- Afghanistan will continue to suffer the brunt of proxy wars and instability.

IWF in the News: Government-Run Healthcare Hint - 'One Size Fits All'

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:29:00 EST

Onenewsnow

New mammography guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force continue to draw criticism.

The guidelines announced last week suggest that women ages 40-49 should not receive the breast-cancer screening procedure, and that those age 50 and up should only receive the procedure every other year. Opponents of government-run healthcare fear that the new guidelines highlight just how the U.S. government plans to ration healthcare. (See earlier article)

Carrie Lukas is the vice president of policy and economics with the Independent Women's Forum. The government, she believes, is showing its hand when it comes to running the healthcare industry.

"I think this really hits home to a lot of people -- and I don't think it's this specific decision on whether or not a woman should have mammography in her 40s versus her 50s," she shares. "It's this idea of government making the decision. I think...most people think this should be between patients and doctors, not the decision of a government bureaucrat."

Lukas contends that the government is taking a "one size fits all" approach to medical procedures and screenings.

In an earlier interview, Dr. John Pierce of the Christian Medical Association told OneNewsNow that the frequency of mammography procedures should be determined on a case-by-case base and take into consideration family history.