Thursday, 01 November 2007
AN EXAMPLE OF HILLARY CLINTON'S 'EXPERIENCE'
The invaluable site, www.sweetness-light.com, provides this
look at the quality of Hillary Clinton's "experience" in heath care. It
does so via a book excerpt from "The First Partner" which was written by Joyce
Please read it and learn something about the candidate you may be asked
tyo vote for next year at this time. And don't expect to see much about it
in the mainstream media, which seem much more interested in writing a daily
hagiography for Ms. Clinton than in exploring who and what she really is.
Usually I bold-print the key passages, but this time it was done by the
October 31st, 2007
From The First Partner -
Hillary Rodham Clinton, by Joyce Milton,
Hillary believed that every cause
needed a villain, and the pharmaceutical companies had been chosen as the
designated enemy of the day. On February 12 , Hillary traveled
to a health care conference in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with Tipper Gore to
deliver a speech lambasting drug manufacturers for profiteering at the expense
of Americas children. Charging that the cost of immunizing a child
had risen from $6.69 in 1981 to $90.43 in 1991, an increase of 1,250
percent, Hillary told the audience, Unless you are willing to take
on those who profited from that kind of increase and are continuing to do so,
you cannot provide the kind of universal immunization system that this country
needs to have.
Whether drug companies actually priced their
products too high was a matter of opinion. With many new drugs in development,
the pharmaceutical business is becoming more competitive than it was in the
past. Investors in start-up biotech companies, in particular, regularly risk
and lose millions in the hopes of backing a breakthrough drug. High-tech
drugs developed through free-market investments hold the best hope for
conquering scourges like cancer and Alzheimers disease. Moreover, they are
often highly cost effective compared to alternative treatments such as
surgery. On the other hand, millions of Americans who obtain health care
through their employers or the government have no idea what it actually costs.
Many of them do pay out of pocket for drugs, and therefore they are ripe for
the argument that their prescriptions cost too much.
At any rate, the charge that drug
companies were responsible for low vaccination rates was as bogus as Hillarys
statistics, which did not take into account the addition of new shots
to the recommended vaccination program. Manufacturers already donated
free vaccines for needy children, and public health specialists,
including Dr. Joycelyn Elders, who had supervised childhood vaccination
programs during the Clinton era in Arkansas, agreed that the problem
was educating parents to bring their children in for shots, not the cost of
Nevertheless, free childhood vaccinations had
long been part of the Childrens Defense Fund agenda, and the Clintons
used the momentum created by Hillarys speeches to push a bill through
Congress that gave Health and Human Services the power to bypass the
established distribution system by buying up stocks of vaccines at cut-rate
prices and storing them in a central warehouse. Government involvement
threatened to create a bottleneck in the supply of vaccines and to discourage
pharmaceutical companies from developing new ones.
Senator Dale Bumpers, whose wife had long been a
volunteer in pediatric vaccination programs in Arkansas, denounced the
administrations actions as creating a bureaucratic nightmare. Public health
experts agreed, and the administration, faced with overwhelming
criticism, abandoned the distribution plan.
Judging from a 1995 report by the General
Accounting Office, the pediatric vaccination program that existed in 1993 had
been generally on target in meeting its goals. Based on Hillary
Clintons proclamation of a nonexistent crisis, Congress had been stampeded
into passing unnecessary legislation. And even though the worst
features of the administration plan had been dropped, the country was
still stuck with a program that was more costly, cumbersome and wasteful than
the one it replaced.
Whats more, the alarming
statistics Hillary had cited on the rise in prices of prescription drugs were
another myth. It turned out that the Labor Department statisticians had gotten
the numbers wrong.
This news came too late for investors.
The threat of price controls had caused the blue chip pharmaceutical
stocks to decline as much as 40 percent, wiping out over $1 billion worth of
market capitalization. Some smaller biotech companies were put out of business
Only short sellers profited, among
them a private hedge fund called ValuePartners I, run by Smith Capital
Management of Little Rock, Arkansas. Hillary Clinton held an $87,000 stake in
Value Partners I, which also owned a block of stock in United Healthcare, an
HMO that stood to benefit under the Clinton reform plan. Lois Quam, a
United Healthcare vice president, was a member of the task force.
Unlike the Carters, Bushes and
Reagans, the Clintons failed to put their assets into a blind trust when they
moved into the White House. Hillary resisted the notion that her financial
affairs were anybodys business but her own, and she reasoned that
since she was not a government employee and the money was in her name, she
didnt have to resort to a trust. Vince Foster wasnt sure this was so. After
seeing the financial disclosure statement filed by the Clintons the previous
December, Foster worried that Hillarys interest in Value Partners I might
pose a conflict of interest
Just a little taste of the Hillarycare to
If you wait for mainstream media to talk about this sorry episode (far from
the only one) in Senator Clinton's past, you are going to wait for a long, long
If mainstream media aren't talking about one campaign finance scandal after
another for Senator Clinton (Norman Hsu, Abdel Rehman Jinnah, the Millard Weiss
law firm money, etc. etc. etc.), why would we expect them to talk about
HEADLINE FRAUD: BIRTH CONTROL IN THE SCHOOLS
I picked this Associated Press story up on MSNBC. I don't know who came
up with the headline, but it is an out and out fraud, because it makes you think
something that is not true.
Also, while I have defended the AP in the past, the way this is written
perpetuates the headline's fraud.
Let me show you what I'm talking about:.
Most OK with birth control at school, poll
67 percent support handing out contraceptives,
but qualms remain
10:38 a.m. ET, Thurs., Nov. 1,
WASHINGTON - People decisively favor letting their public schools provide
birth control to students, but they also voice misgivings that divide them along
generational, income and racial lines, a poll showed.
Sixty-seven percent support giving contraceptives to students, according
to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll. About as many 62 percent said they
believe providing birth control reduces the number of teenage
are kids," said Danielle Kessenger, 39, a mother of three young children from
Jacksonville, Fla., who supports providing contraceptives to those who request
them. "I was a teenager once and parents don't know everything, though we think
most who support schools distributing contraceptives prefer that they go to
children whose parents have consented. People are also closely divided over
whether sex education and birth control are more effective than stressing
morality and abstinence, and whether giving contraceptives to teenagers
encourages them to have sexual intercourse.
not the school's place to be parents," said Robert Shaw, 53, a
telecommunications company manager from Duncanville, Texas. "For a school to
provide birth control, it's almost like the school saying, 'You should go out
and have sex.'"
surveyed were not asked to distinguish between giving contraceptives to boys or
survey was conducted in late October after a school board in Portland, Maine, voted
to let a middle school health center provide students with full contraceptive
services. The school's students are sixth-
through eighth-graders, when most children are 11 to 13 years old, and do not
have to tell their parents about services they receive.
Opt-out policy considered
school officials plan to consider a proposal soon that would let parents forbid
their children from receiving prescription contraceptives like birth control
pregnancy rates have declined to about 75 per 1,000, down from a 1990 peak of
117, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research center. Still, nearly
half of teens aged 15 to 19 report having had sex at least once, and almost
750,000 of them a year become pregnant.
percent in the AP poll who favor providing birth control to students include 37
percent who would limit it to those whose parents have consented, and 30 percent
to all who ask.
Minorities, older and lower-earning people were likeliest to prefer
requiring parental consent, while those favoring no restriction tended to be
younger and from cities or suburbs. People who wanted schools to provide no
birth control at all were likelier to be white and higher-income
"Parents should be in on it," said Jennifer Johnson, 29, of Excel, Ala.,
a homemaker and mother of a school-age child. "Birth control is not saying you
can have sex, it's protecting them if they decide to."
1,300 U.S. public schools with adolescent students less than 2 percent of the
total have health centers staffed by a doctor
or nurse practitioner who can write prescriptions, said spokeswoman Divya Mohan
of the National Assembly of School-Based Health Care. About one in four of those
provide condoms, other contraceptives, prescriptions or referrals, Mohan
than 1 percent of middle schools and nearly 5 percent of high schools make
condoms available for students, said Nancy Brener, a health scientist with the
federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Underlining the schisms over the issue, those saying sex education and
birth control were better for reducing teen pregnancies outnumber people
preferring morality and abstinence by a slim 51 percent to 46
Younger people were
likelier to consider sex education and birth control the better way to limit
teenage pregnancies, as were 64 percent of minorities and 47 percent of whites.
Nearly seven in 10 white evangelicals opted for abstinence, along with about
half of Catholics and Protestants.
Oscar Sosa / AP
Danielle Kessenger holds
her 3-year-old daughter, Emma, Oct. 31, 2007 in Jacksonville, Fla.
The 39-year-old mother of three young children supports providing
contraceptives to those who request them.
Split on encouragement issue
addition, 49 percent say providing teens with birth control would not encourage
sexual intercourse and a virtually identical 46 percent said it
men and women have similar views
about whether to provide contraceptives to students, women are likelier than men
to think it will not encourage sexual intercourse, 55 percent to 43
when young people should first be allowed to get birth control, ages 16 and 18
drew the most responses, while only a third chose age 15 or younger. Women's
selections averaged just over age 16, slightly higher than men, while young
people and Westerners preferred younger ages than others.
pulling my kids out of that school," Ron Wrobel, 55, an engineer from Port
Huron, Mich., said of the Maine middle school. He said birth control should be
for teens at least 17 years old.
Mirroring the rift that has played out in countless battles in Congress,
Democrats were likelier than Republicans to favor freer access to birth control
and to have more faith that it reduces teenage pregnancies. Forty-five percent
of Republicans _ including 51 percent of GOP women _ say birth control should
not be provided to any students, compared to 19 percent of Democrats.
poll involved telephone interviews with 1,004 adults from Oct. 23-25. It had a
margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage
The headline says that most are ok with birth control at the schools, and the
first words of the article say that people decisively favor letting their public
schools provide children with birth control.
A lot of people will never read further than this. They will shake
their heads in either approval or disgust, agreement or disbelief, and move
on. And they'll never know the real story.
You have to go into the detail of the article and read the actual numbers to
see that only 30% of the people surveyed feel that way. 30% flat out do
not want birth control dispensed and another 37% say only for parents who
consent to dispensing birth control (no question is shown regarding
whether THEY consent).
In other words, two thirds of the sample do NOT say they want public schools to just go
on their merry way handing out birth control. This reality is ju-u-u-u-st a bit removed
from what the headline and lead sentence suggest -- like
roughly the distance between Midtown Manhattan and central Mars.
Further, about half the sample feels that by dispensing birth control
the school will be encouraging children to have sex. Other than for maybe
the last two years of high school, this sex would be illegal in
every state of the USA. Funny, that wasn't mentioned at
Bottom line: the spin on this story is a disgrace, and whoever wrote
the headline, whether MSNBC or the Associated Press, should be ashamed.
Shame for the dishonesty of the first sentence is exclusive to the
LATEST CABLE NEWS RATINGS: THE REAL STORY
With all the hype and all the gamesmanship cable networks use to make claims
about how they are doing, I thought you might like to see the actual numbers of
households watching each show.
With this in mind, here are the top 18 shows on cable news channels for
(most of) the month of October. To make things easier, I have put the
non-Fox shows in blue:.
OCTOBER '07 (LIVE) FINAL Competitive
Program Analysis (excluding breaking news & specials)
OCTOBER '07: 10/01/2007 -
NETWORK PROGRAM NAME
FOXN THE OREILLY
FOXN HANNITY &
FOXN THE FOX REPORT
FOXN SPECIAL REPORTW/BRIT HUM
FOXN ON THE RECORD
FOXN THE OREILLY FACTOR
CNN LARRY KING
FOXN THE BIG STORY W/J
FOXN FOX AND
FOXN STUDIO B
FOXN YOUR WORLD W/NEIL
FOXN FOX NEWS
FOXN LIVE DESK
MSNB COUNTDOWN W/ K.
CNN ANDERSON COOPER
A few points to be made:
-All but two of the top 15 cable news shows are on Fox.
Given that there are four cable channels, that is astounding.
-The highest rated non-Fox show, Larry King, runs a poor second
to Fox in its time slot.
-The O'Reilly Factor continues to dominate, with well
over 2 million viewers per day. In its time slot, it outperforms the other
three cable news shows combined.
-With all the hype for keith olbermann, he remains a nit on O'Reilly's
backside. Olbermann has less than one third the viewing audience
of O'Reilly. In fact, the REPEAT of The O'Reilly Factor at 11PM generates
over 40% more viewership than olbermann does in prime time. Ouch.
-Chris Matthews, who MSNBC seems to think is some
kind of superstar, isn't even in the top 18. His show,
Hardball, nets out at #26, with only 412, 000 viewers. After years of being on the air,
and being hyped every way MSNBC and their parent company NBC can think of,
that is abysmal.
-Dan Abrams, who more or less runs MSNBC these days and decided
to hire himself as a show host, does even worse than Matthews. He is
mired at #28. Blech.
Ok, there is the real story, not the PR garbage. Now
EXCELLENT NEWS ON OUR ECONOMY
Here, courtesy of the Associated Press, is
some excellent news about our standing in the world economy-wise:.
America tops in research,
November 1, 2007
GENEVA (AP) The United States has regained its
status as the world's most competitive economy thanks to strong innovation and
excellent universities, according to a survey released yesterday by the World
The U.S. rebounded from sixth place last year to knock
Switzerland from the top spot in the forum's global competitiveness index. The
Swiss were second this year, followed by Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Finland.
The study by the Geneva-based World Economic Forum said the U.S. was
boosted by its close cooperation between universities and business on research
and development, its high intellectual property protection, and its efficient
use of employees and investment.
But increasing public indebtedness in
the U.S. threatens to hamper the country's growth, the study said.
danger has most recently been demonstrated by the fallout and contagion caused
by the country's subprime mortgage crisis and the ensuing global credit crunch,"
said Xavier Sala-i-Martin, a professor of economics at Columbia University and
one of the authors of the survey.
Mr. Sala-i-Martin said the weaknesses
"present a risk to the country's overall competitiveness potential and to the
global economy as a whole."
The aim of the survey is to examine the
factors that can affect a country's business environment and development.
Included are judicial independence, government favoritism and corruption.
Switzerland was credited with an excellent capacity for innovation, a
sophisticated business culture, outstanding research institutions and strong
intellectual property protection.
The Nordic countries traditionally
strong in the survey were praised for their budget surpluses and very low
levels of public indebtedness.
Germany's good performance is largely due
to its high-quality infrastructure and the efficiency of its goods and financial
markets, according to the survey. The same positive elements also boosted
Britain, which came in ninth.
More than 11,000 business leaders in 131
countries took part in the survey, which ranked Singapore seventh, followed by
Japan. The Netherlands came in 10th.
China and India, two emerging
economies, were in the middle of the 131-nation list. China improved to 34th,
from 54th last year. Its competitiveness was based mainly on its large market
and a stable economy with low inflation and high savings.
48th-place ranking was attributed to the availability of scientists and
engineers and good quality of research institutions in a large economy.
At the bottom of the list were countries primarily in sub-Saharan
Africa, such as Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Burundi and Chad.
The U.S. regained its status as the world's most competitive
economy this year, according to a Swiss group of economists.
Source: World Economic
Yes, there is a warning about our indebtedness (which I agree with
100%). But we are #1 even with that taken into account.
Maybe mainstream media will be nice enough to pick this story up and let the
people in on the good news. But, mainstream media being what they are, maybe
That's too bad. You'd think they have a lot more openings for news
stories since, now that Iraq is going so much better, they don't report about it
MORE LEFT WING ANTI-SEMITISM
I often blog about how the hard left has become ground zero for anti semitism in the United States.
You know, the ones who like to dodge admitting what they are by assuring
you "we're only anti-Israel, not anti-Jewish" - which, 99% of the time is utter
BS. But sometimes they don't even bother trying to hide it.
Here, courtesy of www.littlegreenfootballs.com, is
the latest example:.
Thu, Nov 1, 2007 at 9:09:11 am
A University of Oregon peace group called the
Pacifica Forum is planning to remember the Nazi atrocity of Kristallnacht this
year with two days of speeches and conferences led by a neo-Nazi Holocaust
denier. Yes, really.
Heres another story concerning what appears to
be a trend: purported peace activists promoting Holocaust denial and
anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. In this case, a University of Oregon peace
organization called Pacifica Forum, which was founded and is led by a retired
professor and a retired administrator from that university, is marking
Kristallnacht with two days of speeches and conferences this weekend conducted
by Mark Weber director
of the Holocaust denial group Institute for Historical Review.
Weber, the former editor of the National Vanguard, the main publication of the
neo-Nazi National Alliance Party, has spent the past 30 years as a
professional advocate of Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism. His opening
lecture on Friday is entitled: Free Speech vs. Zionist Power. Advertisements
for the event feature the image of a snake in the shape of a Star of David
with the legend The Israel Lobby: How Powerful Is It? November 9 marks the
69th anniversary of Kristallnacht,
which is considered by many historians to be the beginning of the Holocaust.
(Pacifica Forum schedule available here.)
This is the Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat Brigade at its finest.
And their sick hatred is played out in university after university.
Websites such as www.thefire.org and www.campuswatch.org (among others)
do a superb job of monitoring them and should be read often.
However, if you're waiting for mainstream media
articles, features, etc. which speak to the level of Jew hatred
in academia, you'll be very lucky to find any. This has been going on for a
long time, with a quantum increase in the last 5 or so years
and they barely have had a word to say about it.
But let's be honest here; the LAMB's have too many points of agreement with
mainstream media for them to be taken apart for this teeny weeny little
Hey, what's a few million Jews in the great scheme of things? And who cares
about the existence of their only homeland in the world? Groups like the
Pacifica Forum are for PEACE. You can't quibble
Let's keep the michael moore, crooksandliars.com and daily
kos crowd happy. Yeah, that's the ticket.
HILLARY: AFTERMATH OF THE DEBATE DEBACLE
Poor Hillary Clinton. She is the frontrunner for the Democratic
Presidential nomination and the guys trying to win that nomination instead of
her are on the attack.
What an outrage. This is Queen Hillary. Hillary the
Heroine. The media untouchable you're not supposed to press for specifics,
or even question at all. How dare they.
Never mind that this is exactly what happens with EVERY frontrunner in a
presidential nominating process, that's not supposed to count. This is
Hillary Clinton and her 35 years of experience, therefore the rules don't
What's that you ask? WHAT experience? What are her
See, there you go again. This is an affront to
women. This is an affront to working families. You must be from Halliburton or Enron or Blackwell or Tom Foley
or Newt Gingrich or William Jefferso.., er, no, that's one of our
guys, uh.......hey, why are they straitjacketing me, I didn't do
Ok, now a bit of reality. Here, folks, is an article from The Hill (a
neutral publication) that details a conference call made after Hillary's awful
debate performance earlier this week:.
|Campaign call reveals Clinton debate concern
|November 01, 2007 |
|Sen. Hillary Rodham
Clintons (D-N.Y.) top advisers, doing damage control after the
candidates debate performance Tuesday, told supporters on a conference
call Wednesday that the campaign needed more money to fight
Mark Penn, Clintons senior strategist and pollster, and
Jonathan Mantz, the campaigns finance director, told the supporters on
the call, which The Hill listened to in its entirety, that they expect
attacks from Clintons rivals to continue, and she will need the financial
resources to deflect their attacks.
Clinton came under withering assault in the Philadelphia debate,
and some supporters on the call agreed with analysts that she
I wouldnt say she lost her cool, one caller said. But
I would say she lost her footing.
The caller addded that Clintons
response to questions about records from her time in the White House that
have been sealed by the National Archives made me roll my
The criticisms followed Penns assertion that Clinton was
unflappable. He also said criticisms from Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and
former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) would backfire and that he was already
detecting some backlash, particularly among female voters.
female voters are saying, Sen. Clinton needs our support now more than
ever if were going to see this six-on-one to try to bring her down, Penn
told those on the campaign call.
He, Mantz and several supporters
hinted repeatedly on the call that Clinton was unfairly targeted by Tim
Russert, debate moderator and host of NBCs Meet the
Russert made it appear that President Clinton had done
something new or unusual, Penn said, before adding that it is, in fact,
an extremely confusing situation I think there will be further
I hope so, a female caller responded. To me, it
was the most uncomfortable part of the debate.
Penn turned again
to Russert. The other candidates were asked questions like, Is there
life in outer space?
The object of the call, and a follow-up
breakfast Thursday morning with campaign chairman and former chairman of
the Democratic National Committee (DNC) Terry McAuliffe, was apparently to
stop whatever bleeding the senator might have sustained during a debate in
which Clinton wore a bulls-eye on her back throughout the
Penn and Mantz said a new phase in the campaign had
begun with about 65 days to go before the Iowa caucuses. They expect Obama
and Edwards to go negative on TV, and were going to need the resources
to fight that front.
While one supporter voiced his concern that
the Clinton campaign is not devoting enough money and staff to Iowa,
lagging behind Obama, most supporters who commented on the call expressed
their displeasure with what they saw as the moderators focus on
One caller from Oklahoma City said that the questions
were designed to incite a brawl, and that Russerts and Brian Williamss
moderating was an abdication of journalistic
Another said Russert should be shot, before
quickly adding that she shouldnt say that on a conference call.
Penn and Mantz said they were hearing a lot of the same sentiment
from other supporters, but they do not plan to engage the media or the
Were not challenging the media on that, but
the sentiment youve expressed is obviously one Ive heard, Penn
Penn added that he conducted polling before and after the
debate a focus group, perhaps that saw Clinton as the winner. Sen.
Joseph Biden (Del.) had a good night and John Edwards did better, Penn
said, though he added Edwardss numbers have been going down. Obama did
not have a particularly good night, Penn said.
diverge sharply from the assessment of most analysts who watched the
debate, and thought Clinton did poorly. Her campaign appeared to be in
full damage-control mode Wednesday.
It received a big boost at
midday when Clinton received the coveted endorsement of the American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
Gerald McEntee, AFSCMEs president, mentioned the debate
during his endorsement speech, and took Penns and Mantzs view of the
Some of you may have seen last nights debate, McEntee
said. Six guys against Hillary, and Id call that a fair fight. This is a
Obama and Edwards continued their assault throughout
the day, trying to capitalize on the first chink in Clintons armor that
they have seen in months.
In a memo from the Obama campaign,
spokesman Bill Burton said Clinton offered more of the same Washington
political calculation and evasion that wont bring the change America
The politics of hope doesnt mean hoping you dont have
to answer tough questions, Burton wrote.
Burton wrote that Clinton
dodged questions on Social Security, Iran and the National Archives issue.
And on one of the more talked-about moments from the end of the debate,
Clintons position on a move by New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D) to grant
drivers licenses to illegal aliens, Burton said, Twelve hours after the
debate ended, the American people are still waiting for an answer on Sen.
Clintons position She didnt answer the question in the debate and her
campaign couldnt answer it afterwards.
In Wednesdays conference
call, Penn said Clinton clarified that she does support governors like
Gov. Spitzer who are faced with the issue because of the federal
governments failure to offer comprehensive immigration reform.
The Edwards campaign, apparently referring to the AFSCME
endorsement, said Clinton was trying to change the subject after losing a
Clinton drew fire throughout the day from the Republican
National Committee, which sent around a compilation of negative press
releases from state Republican parties in Texas, Florida, Georgia and
Two conservative bloggers filed a complaint with the
FEC charging that Clinton had engaged in questionable, and possibly
illegal, fundraising practices.
The Clinton campaign released a
video Wednesday, entitled The Politics of Pile On, showing clips of the
senators rivals going after her by name during the debate.
senator did not appear ready to surrender Wednesday, though. When
accepting the AFSCME endorsement, Clinton handed McEntee a pair of boxing
When it comes to fighting for Americas working families,
Ill go 10 rounds with anybody, she said.
THE UNIVERS(INSAN)ITY OF DELAWARE
What I am about to show you, courtesy of www.worldnetdaily.com, is not made
up. It is real.
Trust me, you'll shake your head in despair when you read it...and then
wonder why concerned parents would expend tuition money to have this kind of
mind-numbing sickness put in their children's heads.
Let me show you:.
defends teaching students all whites
'Program designed to
encourage decisions on a number of
Posted: November 1, 2007
By Bob Unruh
The University of Delaware is defending its program that includes the teaching "all whites are
racist" and offers "treatment" for any incorrect attitudes regarding class,
gender, religion, culture or sexuality.
WND reported yesterday on concerns raised by The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which wrote to university President Patrick Harker citing
documents from the schools' Office of Residence Life Diversity Education
"Somehow, the University of Delaware seems
terrifyingly unaware that a state-sponsored institution of higher education in
the United States does not have the legal right to engage in a program of
systematic thought reform," the letter from FIRE's director of legal and public
advocacy, Samantha Harris, said. "The First Amendment protects the right to
freedom of conscience the right to keep our innermost thoughts free from
governmental intrusion. It also protects the right to be free from compelled
She said included among the school's teaching
resources was the following: "A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged
and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. 'The
term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in
the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality.
By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within
the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices,
hostilities, or acts of discrimination.
The university responded to WND questions about
the program with an e-mail referral to a web posting, which said, "there is in
fact a program within the residence halls that engages students in
self-examination of the roles they hope to take in society."
"This effort is consistent with the mission of the
university which states, 'Our graduates should know how to reason critically and
independently communicate clearly in writing and speech, and develop into
informed citizens and leaders.' The program is designed to encourage students to
think about and to consider a number of issues, but all make their own decisions
about the outcome of this reflection," the school said.
The school said FIRE "asserts a number of
conclusions that can be supported by a selective citation of documents, but are
not actualized" and said "indoctrination serves no educational purpose."
Harris said the organization knows Delaware's
students are intelligent.
"They're coming forward in droves to complain
about the program," she said.
But the focus shouldn't be on the results but the
school's actions, she told WND.
"The issue is that a state university doesn't have
the right to try to indoctrinate its students, whether or not that's ultimately
successful," she said.
The school's website posting accused FIRE of
distorting and misrepresenting the program, so FIRE will post on the internet a
compilation of the school's program for students an estimated 500 pages and
readers will be able to judge for themselves, Harris told WND.
The university's posted response was signed
electronically by Michael Gilbert, vice president for student life. He said
students "are challenged to express themselves as free-thinking citizen [and]
indoctrination does not exist as part of a systematic effort on this campus."
The program in place, he said, reflects the
university's belief "that students learn and grow in part by engaging in
significant discussions on both sides of the classroom door."
He said there have been "missteps" in the program,
which is new. "As with any university educational endeavor assessment and
feedback measures have been established to identify issues or concerns. Each of
the issues FIRE presents are currently under review. In fact, we recently became
aware that students in several residence halls were told their participation is
mandatory at these activities and we have taken steps to clarify this
misconception and to notify students of their rights in this area."
Harker responded to a consumer who e-mailed about
the situation with the following statement: "The central mission of the
University of Delaware, and of the residential life educational program, is to
cultivate both learning and the free exchange of ideas and we certainly do not
agree with the findings of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education."
As WND reported earlier, the education program also notes that "reverse racism" is "a term
created and used by white people to deny their white privilege." And "a
non-racist" is called "a non-term," because, the program explains, "The term was
created by whites to deny responsibility for systemic racism, to maintain an
aura of innocence in the face of racial oppression, and to shift the
responsibility for that oppression from whites to people of color (called
'blaming the victim')."
The "education" regarding racism is just one of
the subjects that students are required to adopt as part of their University of
Delaware experience, too, FIRE noted.
The "shocking program of ideological reeducation,"
which the school itself defines as a "treatment" for students' incorrect
attitudes and beliefs, is nothing less than "Orwellian," FIRE said. Other issues
on which students are taught include homosexuality, environmentalism, and other
politically correct issues.
"FIRE is calling for the total dismantling of the
program, which is a flagrant violation of students' rights to freedom of
conscience and freedom from compelled speech," the organization said.
On a foundation blog, a student noted that one
residence assistant told students, "Not to scare anyone or anything, but these
are MANDATORY!!" And the training program for those who indoctrinate students
includes the order: "A researcher must document that the treatment/intervention
was faithfully applied (ex: specific lesson plans were delivered to every
Further, the school requires "a systemic change"
as a result of the program, FIRE noted. As one RA told students: "Like it or
not, you all are the future Leaders, and the world is Diverse, so learning to
Embrace and Appreciate that diversity is ESSENTIAL."
"The University of Delaware's residence life
education program is a grave intrusion into students' private beliefs," FIRE
President Greg Lukianoff said. "The university has decided that it is not enough
to expose its students to the values it considers important; instead, it must
coerce its students into accepting those values as their own. At a public
university like Delaware, this is both unconscionable and unconstitutional."
According to university materials, RAs are
instructed to ask students during one-on-one sessions questions such as: "When
did you discover your sexual identity?" "When were you first made aware of your
race?" and "Who taught you a lesson in regard to some sort of diversity
awarness? What was the lesson?"
"Students who express discomfort with this type of
questioning often meet with disapproval from their RAs, who write reports on
these one-on-one sessions and deliver these reports to their superiors. One
student identified in a write-up as an RA's 'worst' one-on-one session was a
young woman who stated that she was tired of having 'diversity shoved down her
throat,'" FIRE said.
This particular student responded to the question,
"When did you discover your sexual identity?" with the terse: "That is none of
your damn business," FIRE said.
Requirements for students include: "Students will
recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society," "Students will
recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression," and "Students will
be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily
habits and consumer mentality," FIRE said.
The school posting noted that such best-worst
ratings are used only "by supervisors to ask Resident Assistants to reflect on
their facilitation skills and never to describe students or the outcome of a
But Harris then wondered why all of the "best"
ratings were given to students who appeared to adopt the political perspective
presented to them by RAs, and the "worst" always given to those students who
objected to the questions.
"Coincidence?" Harris asked.
WND's own review of just a small amount of the
information posted under student life categories on the Delaware website
documented almost exclusive support for the presentation of a political agenda.
One program had suggested readings that included
writings by Peggy McIntosh, who cited dozens of "daily effects of white
privilege," including, "I can talk with my mouth full and not have people put
this down to my color."
Another recommended reading was by Sandra Lawrence
and Beverly Tatum, and titled "White Racial Identity and Anti-Racist Education:
A Catalyst for Change."
In that document, they state, "Being White is
viewed as a 'normal' state of being which is rarely reflected upon, and the
privileges associated with being White are simply taken for granted.
"Because the ideology of White racial superiority
is so deeply embedded in our culture, the process of 'unlearning racism' is a
journey we need to continue throughout our lives," they wrote.
Those writings also documented the results in some
of the students in their classes, such as:
"I have people that I don't invite over [to my
house] anymore. I like Jane, but her husband is a bigot, and I won't put up with
it," wrote one enlightened student.
Another recommended writing was "Confessions of a
Recovering Racist," by Donna Hauer, who condemned a "Baptist minister father"
for failing to "embrace" his son's homosexual lifestyle, a mother who
"disappointed" him and an "impersonal, homophobic, (sic) university" that did
not meet his desires.
Another brochure listed was "Detour spotting for
white anti-racists" by "jona olsson."
That told readers, "No white person has ever lived
in a non-racist North America. None of us has ever been taught the skills of
anti-racist living. Indeed, we have been carefully taught the opposite: how to
maintain our white privilege."
"Racism," she continued, "the system (of
oppression) and advantage (for white people) depends on the collusion and
cooperation of white people for its perpetuation."
Both White and Black people read this blog. So let me ask both races
the same two questions:
-Do you think you are capable of being a racist?
-Do you think you are capable of not being a racist?
Based on the insanity being promoted at the University of Delaware,
Each race has just one set of answers. A White person can only answer
"Yes" and then "No". A Black person can only answer "No" and then
"Yes". Based on what? Based on race, that's what.
Let me put it this way. A Black man and a White man are
screaming at each other. The White man Screams "Black bastard", and the
Black man screams "White Bastard". In the happy horsemanure world of
President Patricia Harker and the University of Delaware, that makes the
White man a racist but not the Black man.
Want another example? A Black man and a European Jew are screaming at
each other. The Black man screams "Kike". The Jew screams "Nigger". According to
the University of Delaware, only the Jew is a racist.
Now, as a refreshing change of pace, here is a
little sanity for you: if your words and/or actions favor one
race over another, you are a racist.
And I don't give a flying rat's rear what color your skin is.
You'd think that would be plain enough. But not at the
University of Delaware, where they simultaneously indoctrinate students
with this racist vomit and tell them that, by doing so, they are engaging in
freedom of thought. Allow me to repeat their mantra: ."This effort is consistent with the mission of the
university which states, 'Our graduates should know how to reason critically and
independently " .
George Orwell's "1984" had nothing on Patricia
HEATHER BURIED PAUL
Heather Mills is a former model who lost her leg in a tragic accident.
She is also the wife of Paul McCartney and they are currently embroiled
in as bitter a divorce as you will ever hear about.
Normally this wouldn't mean very much to me. I don't really care about
celebrity marriages and divorces. But, having watched Ms. Mills on
the Today show this morning, I feel compelled to say something about this
Heather Mills' life until recent years was, frankly, pretty dissolute.
She modelled for a supposed sex manual, which in reality was probably
pornography trying to pose as legitimate. She also dumped her fiance
just before their marrage for Paul McCartney (and his money and fame,
let's not forget). That, and several other events in Ms.
Mills' past, hardly speak well of her.
That said, however, Heather Mills has also been a tireless worker for
various social and humanistic causes, including animal rights and anti-landmine
groups. And apparently she has been more than just a "name" that they use
as a figurehead, she really does work for those causes.
On the Today show, while being interviewed by Matt Lauer, Ms. Mills
talked about how she is relentlessly pursued by papparazzi, who also go after
her friends and relatives to get something juicy for their publications.
She also talked about how the UK's slander laws make it profitable for
these scumbuckets to lie about her so they can sell more magazines, newspapers
and generate larger TV audiences. Then they eventually apologize, provide
a minimal retraction with no fanfare, and pay a fine that represents a
small fraction of the monetary benefit derived from the lie.
And she talked about the near impossibility of getting a fair shake from the
media because she is divorcing a world-class icon. She talked about the
damage this inflicts on the daughter she had with McCartney, now four years
I have to say that either Ms. Mills is one bodaciously talented actress or
she has articulated several heartfelt issues that, I would think, exist
to varying degrees when any person divorces a major celebrity - especially
one with the high profile and publicity mill of a Paul McCartney.
I wasn't following this divorce before. But you can bet I'll be
following it now.