Thursday, 01 November 2007


Ken Berwitz

The invaluable site,, 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 Milton. 

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 website:.

Remember Hillary Clintons Vaccine Fiasco?

October 31st, 2007

From The First Partner - Hillary Rodham Clinton, by Joyce Milton, pp 278-280:

Reclaiming America

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 [1993], 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 the vaccines.

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 permanently.

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 come.  .

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 time.

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 this?


Ken Berwitz

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 finds

67 percent support handing out contraceptives, but qualms remain

updated 10:38 a.m. ET, Thurs., Nov. 1, 2007

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 pregnancies.

"Kids 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 we do."

Yet 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.

"It's 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.'"

Those surveyed were not asked to distinguish between giving contraceptives to boys or girls.

The 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
Portland school officials plan to consider a proposal soon that would let parents forbid their children from receiving prescription contraceptives like birth control pills.

Teenage 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.

The 67 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 earners.

"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."

About 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 said.

  Click for related content

Less 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 percent.

Teen Contraceptives AP Poll
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.

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.

Split on encouragement issue
In addition, 49 percent say providing teens with birth control would not encourage sexual intercourse and a virtually identical 46 percent said it would.

Though 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 percent.

Asked 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.

"I'd be 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.

The 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 points..

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 all.

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 Associated Press.


Ken Berwitz

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 - 10/26/2007


FOXN THE OREILLY FACTOR                               2,253 475

FOXN HANNITY & COLMES                                  1,398 343

FOXN THE FOX REPORT W/S.SMITH                   1,282 303

FOXN SPECIAL REPORTW/BRIT HUM                  1,210 255

FOXN ON THE RECORD W/GRETA                       1,159,312

FOXN THE OREILLY FACTOR (RPT)                     1,013 347

FOXN AMERICAS NEWSROOM                               995 271

CNN LARRY KING LIVE                                            982 285

FOXN THE BIG STORY W/J GIBSON                       897 188

FOXN FOX AND FRIENDS                                       876 314

FOXN STUDIO B W/S.SMITH                                   861 195

CNN LOU DOBBS TONIGHT                                   825 218

FOXN YOUR WORLD W/NEIL CAVUTO                   801 174

FOXN FOX NEWS LIVE                                          786 202

FOXN LIVE DESK W/M.MACCALLUM                    776 187

MSNB COUNTDOWN W/ K. OLBERMANN              710 240

CNN SITUATION ROOM                                         594 189

CNN ANDERSON COOPER 360                              593 228 .

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 you know.


Ken Berwitz

Here, courtesy of the Associated Press, is some excellent news about our standing in the world economy-wise:.

America tops in research, business

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 Economic Forum.

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.

"This 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.

India's 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.

1. United States

2. Switzerland

3. Denmark

4. Sweden

5. Germany

6. Finland

7. Singapore

8. Japan

9. Britain

10. Netherlands

Source: World Economic Forum

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 they won't. 

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 anymore.


Ken Berwitz

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, is the latest example:.

Peace Group to Mark Kristallnacht with Holocaust Denial Conference

Thu, Nov 1, 2007 at 9:09:11 am PDT

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 and (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 aberration. 

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 with that. 

Let's keep the michael moore, and daily kos crowd happy.  Yeah, that's the ticket.


Ken Berwitz

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 apply.

What's that you ask?  WHAT experience?  What are her accomplishments?

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 anything.......

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 back.

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 stumbled.

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 eyes.

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.

Those 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 Press.

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 clarification.

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 evening.

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 Clinton.

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 responsibility.

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 debates moderators.

Were not challenging the media on that, but the sentiment youve expressed is obviously one Ive heard, Penn said.

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.

Those results 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 (AFSCME).

Gerald McEntee, AFSCMEs president, mentioned the debate during his endorsement speech, and took Penns and Mantzs view of the results.

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 strong woman.

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 needs.

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 debate.

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 California.

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.

The senator did not appear ready to surrender Wednesday, though. When accepting the AFSCME endorsement, Clinton handed McEntee a pair of boxing gloves.

When it comes to fighting for Americas working families, Ill go 10 rounds with anybody, she said.



Ken Berwitz

What I am about to show you, courtesy of, 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:.

University defends teaching students all whites 'racist'
'Program designed to encourage decisions on a number of issues'

Posted: November 1, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

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 Training program.

"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 speech."

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 student, etc.)."

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 conversation."

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 Harker.


Ken Berwitz

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 one.

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 old.

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.

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!