Feminism Gives Western Culture a Bad Rep

Progressives argue that Guantanamo Bay has been a huge recruiting tool for radical jihadists. If one small prisoner of war camp has that power, imagine what a massive recruiting tool the American feminist movement is for jihadists.

That thought came to mind when Egyptian-born Nonie Darwish said, at the Institute's Midwest Women's Summit in Minnesota, "the Middle East watches what happens in the West."  No doubt Middle Easterners draw inferences about Western culture generally and Western women specifically from the behavior of feminists today. That's a shame, because (to paraphrase President Obama), modern feminism is "not who we are."  Not by a long shot.

American feminists' utter disdain for men, children and family, and their penchant for excusing and/or defending even the most disgusting sexual misbehavior of women, paint an ugly portrait of Western culture — one that even a majority of American women find distasteful. An Vox poll this month found only 18 percent of Americans consider themselves feminists.

Any positive messages traditional feminism might once have had — equal workplace opportunity for women, and equal treatment of women under the law — have been lost today. That's sad for women in the world still dreaming of that degree of equality, and it's a disaster for Western culture.

________
Below is a video of Ms. Darwish's full remarks at the Summit:

Conrad: "Safe Spaces" Are Unsafe for Free Exchange of Ideas

"'Trigger Warnings' are just another way of saying 'Shut Up', argues Laurel Conrad, the Institute's Lecture Director in a Legal Insurrection post. "Why should the leftist students control the conversation and keep out other perspectives?"

College campuses are meant to be a place where students engage in new perspectives and critical reasoning. Or so they say.

But by labeling conservative points of view as “extremist,” “anti-feminist,” and “racist,” feminists are shutting down the dialogue on their college campuses before it even begins.

To the leftist student activists, it seemingly doesn’t matter whether or not these labels are deserved. They’ve realized that all they need to do is to stigmatize a talk by a conservative speaker is to condemn the speaker as an oppressing force.

For instance, last Thursday, I facilitated a lecture at the Georgetown University on behalf of the conservative organization I work for, the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, and the Georgetown CRs.

As soon as the campus feminists caught wind of the event, they immediately began protesting and demanding trigger warnings in order to silence the talk.

The lecture, given by author and Luce Institute speaker Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers, was entitled ‘What’s Right (and Badly Wrong) with Feminism?’ It was set to take a critical look at the failures and good points of feminism.

But from listening to the campus feminists, you would inaccurately think Dr. Sommers was gearing up to give a lecture on ‘Rape Apology.’

Read the rest.

Obama Broke Student Loan Program Too

"Obama keeps trying to portray the student loan crisis as a problem suffered by students burdened by a mountain of debt when they graduate," writes Investor's Business Daily. But the greater crisis, the editors' argue, is the explosion of debt owed the federal Treasury as a result of Obama's federal takeover of the loan program.

Obama sold this government takeover as a way to save money — why bear the costs of guaranteeing private loans, he said, when the government could cut out the middleman and lend the money itself?

The cost savings didn't happen. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office just increased its 10-year forecast for the loan program's costs by $27 billion, or 30%.

IBD's chart (above) shows the rapid explosion in student loan debt owed to the federal Treasury, which totals nearly $1.2 trillion today and "now exceeds that of auto loans or credit card debt."

Although "average student loan debt is only a little over $20,000" (an amount IBD editors argue could be paid back within a decade by "a student who gave up his $5-a-day Starbucks habit"), less than half of student debt owed the federal government is being paid back.

Through words and actions, Obama has encouraged irresponsibility on the part of student borrowers. He constantly talks as if student debt were an unfair burden they unknowingly had foisted upon them.

At the same time, he's made it easier and easier to avoid paying back student loans in full.  Earlier this year, for example, Obama expanded eligibility for his "pay as your earn" program, which limits loan payments to 10% of income, with any debt left after 20 years forgiven.

Students got the message. The St. Louis Fed reports that 27.3% of student loans in repayment are at least a month behind in payments. That's a far higher delinquency rate than any other kind of debt, and it's significantly higher than the delinquency rate 10 years ago. ...

A 2013 Consumer Financial Protection Board report found that less than half of this federal loan money was actually being paid. About 30% was held by borrowers still in school or in a grace period, another chunk in deferment or forbearance, and almost 14% was in default.

SRO at Georgetown U Lecture About Feminism

Congratulations to Georgetown University student Mallory Carr, who worked with her Georgetown CR chapter to coordinate a fantastic, standing-room only CBLPI-sponsored event tonight! Well over one hundred students attended the lecture entitled, "What's Right (and Badly Wrong) with Feminism?" given by Luce Institute campus speaker Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers.

Also in attendance at the event were about a dozen student feminists holding signs with slogans like "Trigger Warning: anti-feminism" and "Feminists Against RAPE Apology!"

These students also posted signs outside of the lecture room alerting students to "safe spaces" in another building on campus. According to the signs, "all are welcome to come if they feel triggered or upset by today's events. Hate speech will not be appreciated in this space," and "Trigger Warning: this event will contain discussions of sexual assault and may deny the experiences of survivors." The protesters also engaged in a heated Q&A session that will be posted soon on CBLPI's YouTube channel.

The protesters used trigger warnings as a way to stigmatize the presentation and anything that differs from their point of view. Liberals insist upon pushing their politically correct agenda on others and it’s insulting.

It was inspiring to see so many students attend this event. Despite the protesters, Dr. Sommers did an excellent job explaining her vision of 'Freedom Feminism'. While it is too bad that some of the Georgetown students felt the need to try to shame their fellow students who hosted the event, I am glad they did attend. Hopefully there are some thoughtful students who will reconsider the preconceived notions after hearing a new perspective tonight.

At no time did Dr. Sommers say anything that could be misconstrued as rape apology. The protesters were clearly trying to use a straw-man argument to silence and censor the event. Fortunately, the controversy only increased attendee turnout and campus buzz.

Mallory and CR chairman Amber Athey(pictured with Dr. Sommers) did a wonderful job coordinating this event, and I am happy for them that it was such a success!

—by Laurel Conrad, the Institute's Lecture Director
_____________
Update -- Other articles on the event:

Students Fear for the Safety Because Conservatives Invited a Speaker to Campus, National Review Online
Militant Georgetown Feminists Demand 'SAFE SPACE' Because of Scary 5'5", 130-lb. Woman, Daily Caller
Christina Hoff Sommers Gets Trigger Warnings at Georgetown, Legal Insurrection
Feminist Students Feel 'Unsafe' Bringing Female, Conservative Speaker to Campus, Campus Reform
IRONY: College Students Demand "Trigger Warnings" For This Speaker, Chicks on the Right

And the video:

Marist Poll: Religious Freedom vs Gay Wedding Services

A recent poll suggests gay activists may be winning legal and media battles while losing the broader public opinion war.

"The Democratic Party has launched a furious assault on Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but it appears most Americans support what the Indiana law intends to do, according to a Marist poll that predates the recent outrage," writes Blake Neff at the Daily Caller.

The poll, conducted from Feb. 25 through March 1, found that 54 percent of American adults believe in providing religious exemptions to individuals and organizations "even when it conflicts with government law," and 65 percent specifically oppose penalties or fines for businesses that refuse to provide services for gay weddings.

Support for religious liberty cuts across all age groups:

What's Right (and Badly Wrong) with Feminism?

Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers will give a Georgetown University lecture entitled "What's Right (and Badly Wrong) with Feminism?" on Thursday, April 16 at 7:00 pm in Healy 103.

The event is sponsored by the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute and hosted by the Georgetown University College Republicans.

Ying Ma Inspires Students at Cornell, Women at CWN

"As an accomplished author and policy analyst, [Ying] Ma is today a thought leader whose conservative commentary reaches not just the nation but the world," writes Casey Breznick in The Cornell Review.

It is for this reason The Cornell Review brought Ma, an alum of the Review, for a special speakers event on the topic of 'Prevailing Over the Welfare State: A Story of Getting Out of the Ghetto'. The event was graciously sponsored by and organized in part by the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, an organization that promotes women through conservative thought and ideas...

Ying Ma's family legally immigrated from Communist China when she was 10 years old, settling into an Oakland CA slum where they were taunted as "Chinamen" by their neighbors. The real injustice of urban life wasn't poverty, Ma's family concluded; it was failing to work to put food on the table.  Rejecting the welfare state lifestyle, the family forged a new life through hard work, determination, and educational achievement. Ma recounts her family's difficult journey in her book, Chinese Girl in the Ghetto, a book that deals equally candidly with race relations, immigration, and welfare.

Ma earned degrees from Cornell University, where she became president of The Cornell Review, and Stanford Law, after which she became a successful lawyer. She is a powerful voice on Asian policy, as well as the opportunity America still offers to those willing to work for it. Fluent in Mandarin and Cantonese, Ying's expertise on China is on display regularly in her column for the Wall Street Journal's China Blog.

On March 20, Ma shared her inspiring story with the Conservative Women's Network in Washington DC as well (video below), drawing distinct contrasts in her experiences between the "welfare state" approach to addressing poverty versus the far more successful "opportunity" approach.

Pipes: On Obamacare's 5th Birthday

Health care expert Sally Pipes marks the 5th birthday of Obamacare with a painful reality check of the changes the health care law has made.

Promise: lower premiums by up to $2,500 per year for typical family.

2014 insurance premiums are 24.4% higher than they would have been without Obamacare, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Promise:  protect vulnerable patient populations from increases in drug prices.

Drug costs are being shifted to patients. In 2015, more than 40% of all 'silver' exchange plans -- the most commonly purchased -- are charging patients 30% or more of the total cost of their specialty drugs. Only 27% of silver plans did so last year.Drug costs for these patients have skyrocketed as costs of drugs were shifted to patients.

Promise:  more choice, more competition, lower costs for millions of Americans.

The Government Accountability Office reports that insurers have left the market in droves. In 2013, 1,232 carriers offered insurance coverage in the individual market. By 2015, that number had shrunk to 310.

Promise:  Government spending on Obamacare will be only $900 billion over 10 years.

This month, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the law's 10-year cost will reach $1.2 trillion.

Promise:  Obamacare will cover 34 million uninsured Americans by 2021.

The Congressional Budget Office revised that estimate to 25 million obtaining coverage by 2025. Moreover 89% of Americans who have signed up for Obamacare in 2013 were already insured and simply switched insurance plans.

Promise:  Obamacare will let you keep your doctor and your hospital.

McKinsey & Co. noted that roughly two-thirds of the hospital networks available on the exchanges were either "narrow" or ultra-narrow," meaning Obamacare plans refused to partner with at least 30% of the area's hospitals. Other plans exclude more than 70%. More than 60% of doctors plan to retire earlier than anticipated -- by 2016 or sooner, according to Deloitte. Coverage is worthless if patients can't find a doctor or hospital who will see them.

 "Time and again," writes Pipes, "Obama has been proven wrong about what his health law would accomplish. Quality hasn't improved, and costs continue to grow out of control.  So far at least, that's Obamacare's legacy."

Upcoming Midwest Women's Summit

The Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute will host a unique retreat for conservative women in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area on April 23-25, 2015. For the agenda and an updated list of speakers, visit the registration page.

Women's History Month: Meet Clare Boothe Luce, Preeminent Renaissance Woman of the 20th Century

March is Women’s History Month and schools around the country will be championing women of acclaim both past and present. Here’s one woman that school children may not know, even though she was one of the most acclaimed and accomplished women of the 20th Century.

Born in 1903, Clare Boothe Luce blazed many trails for women during her lifetime, becoming editor of Vanity Fair magazine, a female European and Asian war journalist in the WWII era, an acclaimed author and playwright, a two-term U.S. Congresswoman, and the first woman to be appointed U.S. Ambassador to a major nation.

Her stunning beauty was matched only by her razor-sharp mind and ambition. By age 16, one biographer wrote, she had set her life goals: “to be fluent in four languages, marry a publisher, and write something that would be remembered. She would achieve all three.”

Shortly after finishing school, 18-year-old Clare spent a brief period working as assistant to militant feminist Alva Belmont, founder of the National Women’s Party. Belmont saw in Clare’s “intelligence, speaking ability and charm” an opportunity to “help destroy the notion that feminist activists had to be rich chesty old matrons or disgruntled, plain spinsters,” as one biographer noted. But militant feminism was not for Clare, and their association was short-lived.

At age 20, Clare married socialite playboy George Tuttle Brokaw and gave birth to her only child, Ann, a year later. When the marriage ended six years later, Clare began work as a writer, first writing captions for Vogue magazine, and later as Assistant Editor and Managing Editor of Vanity Fairmagazine, where she was lauded for her innovative ideas and editorial skill.

Leaving Vanity Fair, Clare turned her attention to playwriting in 1933. She wrote 10 plays in six years, three of which received wide acclaim. Her most famous work, The Women, ran for 657 performances on Broadway and was twice made into a movie (1939 and 2008). Another work, Come to the Stable, gained her an Academy Award nomination for Best Writing: Motion Picture Story.

In 1935, Clare married Henry “Harry” R. Luce, founder, publisher and owner of Time and Fortune magazines. Individually influential and successful, they were an ideal match in intellect and interest in political and world affairs.

As troubles grew in Europe in the late 1930s, Clare spent several months touring Europe as a roving journalist for Life magazine. She became dismayed by the complacency she witnessed. Italy was unconcerned by German’s occupation of Austria and Poland. The French believed war was coming, but that they were amply protected by the Maginot Line of fortified eastern border defenses. Britain, too, felt secure. Clare believed otherwise, that they—and America—were being lulled into a dangerous illusion.

As Germany invaded Denmark, Norway, and Sweden and advanced through Belgium into France, Clare wrote and published Europe in the Spring in 1940. Reprinted 8 times, her book, noted one biographer, “helped shape public opinion as Americans tried to make sense of the escalating crisis in Europe.”

Clare spent much of next two years reporting from Asia, logging over 75,000 miles of air travel in 1942 alone. In uncanny timing, her in-depth interview of General Douglas MacArthur ran as the cover story in Life magazine on December 8, 1941, the day after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.

By now, Clare was an outspoken critic of FDR’s handling of world affairs. She won a seat in the U.S. Congress in 1943 representing her largely Democratic Connecticut district. Clare garnered national attention when media focused on this single line in her debut speech in Congress: “But much of what [Vice President] Wallace calls his global thinking is, no matter how you slice it, still globaloney.”

On January 11, 1944, Clare’s 19-year-old daughter, Ann, was killed in a car crash while driving back to Stanford University after a visit with her mother. A devastated Clare asked Catholic Monsignor Fulton J. Sheen, If God is good, why did he take my daughter? The question would lead to many conversations with Sheen and culminate in Clare’s conversion to Catholicism in 1946. One life-long friend described the transformation: “Twenty years ago she was like a diamond—beautiful, brilliant and cold. Now she is beautiful, brilliant and compassionate. She has become a kind and remarkably unselfish woman.”

In December 1944, Clare was chosen Woman of the Year by an Associated Press poll of American newspaper editors, because, as one editor explained, “no legislator had won greater renown in a single term.” Over her two terms in office, Clare was credited with 18 major initiatives espousing the causes of human rights. In its first annual international poll in March 1948, Gallup ranked Clare the fourth most admired woman in the world.

As WWII came to a conclusion, Clare foresaw a new threat to democracy: communism and the Soviet Union. In nationally-broadcast debates, Clare argued that communism was as totalitarian as Nazism, and that the United States’ post-war mission would be to prevent the spread of communism throughout Europe.

During the 1952 presidential campaign, Clare made no less than 100 personal, radio and television appearances on behalf of GOP candidate Dwight Eisenhower. When President-elect Eisenhower asked what post she would like in his administration, she replied, “Naturally, what I can’t get: Rome.” Such a major post had never been given to a woman. In a daring move, Ike awarded her the post.

Confirmed unanimously by the Senate, Ambassador Clare Boothe Luce arrived to face the skepticism of both Italians and the embassy’s Democratic senior staff hold-overs. Italy in 1953 was at a tipping point between democracy and communism, and the new ambassador was tasked with apprising Italians that the good will of the United States depended on Italy remaining democratic: a message she diligently conveyed to government and business leaders at every opportunity.

Italy was also embroiled in a bitter battle with Yugoslavia over control of the Adriatic port of Trieste. Ambassador Luce proposed a plan for a Trieste resolution, which received the endorsement of the Eisenhower administration. After 18 months of hard negotiations, Yugoslavia and Italy signed the final Treaty of Trieste.

The Treaty won her praise in Italy and at home. One of Italy’s oldest newspapers, Corriere della Sera, editorialized: “Perhaps never in the whole of history has a great nation owed so much to so small, fragile and gentle a woman.” The New York Times wrote, “The Trieste agreement is a victory for Ambassador Clare Boothe Luce, who floated the problem off the reef on which it had foundered some years before her arrival in Italy …Her achievement is the more remarkable because the agreement is, in effect, a carbon copy… of the US-British declaration of October 8, 1953. This declaration … was originally suggested by Mrs. Luce and was made as a result of her insistence.”

Ambassador Luce left Italy in 1956 far better off than she found it: strongly democratic and economically stable. TheWashington Post praised her work: “Judged by the pragmatic test of results, her mission was extremely successful … She worked fantastically hard, even to the detriment of her health, and there was no doubt of her warm friendship for Italy. She brought both dignity and intelligence to her position. Her efforts command the gratitude of her countrymen.”

Although she would continue to serve on presidential advisory boards, she and Harry, who died in 1967, largely retreated from the public eye. Upon her death in 1987, Time magazine eulogized the writer, editor and politician as “the preeminent Renaissance woman of the century.”

Through hard work and determination, Clare Boothe Luce shattered many misguided notions about women and their leadership potential. Once complemented for having a “masculine mind,” Clare retorted, “Thought has no sex. One either thinks, or one does not!”

She deserves to be championed during Women’s History Month.

Survey: Record Low Confidence in Government

"Americans' confidence in all three branches of government is at or near record lows, according to a major survey that has measured attitudes on the subject for 40 years," reports the Associated Press.

The 2014 General Social Survey finds only 23 percent of Americans have a great deal of confidence in the Supreme Court, 11 percent in the executive branch and 5 percent in Congress. By contrast, half have a great deal of confidence in the military.

The survey is conducted by the independent research organization NORC at the University of Chicago. Because of its long-running and comprehensive set of questions about the public, it is a highly regarded source of data about social trends. 

The 11% figure for the presidency "approaches a record low measured by the same survey in 1996, when just 10 percent said they had a great deal of confidence in the executive branch," and the 23% figure for the Supreme Court represents a 40-year low.

Media fared almost as badly as Congress, earning a record-low 7% confidence rating. "Only 1 in 10 has a lot of confidence in television, which is also near a record low," reports the AP.

KT McFarland is the Luce Institute's 2015 Woman of the Year

KT McFarland was presented the Institute's 2015 Woman of the Year award at a luncheon in her honor on February 28, 2015.  (Pictured right: Michelle Easton (l) presents award to KT.)

A national security analyst for Fox News, KT is widely respected for her insight in the area of national security policy.  In her remarks to a large luncheon audience of leading women student activists from around the nation, KT discussed national security issues and offered advice on leadership. Her remarks can be watched on video on our YouTube channel or downloaded on audio at Podbean and iTunes.


Below: KT is congratulated on-air:

Irony: Obama's Amnesty for Illegals Undermines His Obamacare Law

"In the president's zeal to rewrite yet another area of law—immigration—he's sabotaged one of Obamacare's primary goals: expanding employer-sponsored health care," argue constitution law professor Elizabeth Price Foley and former Justice Department attorney David B. Rivkin Jr.

Obama's executive amnesty to 6 million illegals would give them work permits, but it would not allow them to qualify for Obamacare. As a result, they would become "ideal" workers for employers to hire if employers are trying to avoid the massive "employer responsibility tax" — a $2,000 to $3,000 per-employee annual tax imposed by Obamacare on employers for each of their workers who qualifies for Obamacare subsidies through state exchanges.

Because the 6 million immigration beneficiaries aren't eligible for Obamacare tax subsidies, hiring them reduces employers' chances of triggering the employer responsibility tax. Employers have a powerful financial incentive to hire them in place of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. The president's unilateral grant of work permits, combined with the fact that these workers cannot trigger the employer responsibility tax, makes those workers significantly more attractive.  ...  The inevitable result is that more workers will lack employer-provided health insurance coverage. [snip]

The president isn't a one-person lawmaker. He doesn't have the power in our constitutional regime to fix laws he thinks are broken. When a president does so, he not only intrudes on Congress' power, but also creates unpredictable repercussions for other laws. It's no small irony, that, by unilaterally attempt to fix our immigration law, Mr. Obama has undermined his own signature legislative achievement.

Read When Bad Obama Policies Collide.

Voters: Keep Passing Bills Even If Obama is Opposed

"A new Rasmussen Reports poll issued Friday found that 59 percent of voters 'think Congress should continue to pass legislation that most members of Congress support even if the president is opposed'," writes Paul Bedard at the Washington Examiner. "Just 25 percent want Congress to cave into the White House and 16 percent are unsure."

Despite bipartisan support, Obama vetoed the Keystone bill this week, and is promising to use the veto pen much more in his last two years in office.

The poll of 800 likely voters taken this week could also strengthen the backbone of Republicans eager to use the Department of Homeland Security spending bill to punish Obama's decision last year to grant worker amnesty to some 5 million illegal immigrants.

ObamaCare before Supreme Court Wednesday

"On Wednesday, the fate of ObamaCare is in front of the Supreme Court again," writes former NY Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey. "At stake are the subsidies intended to make ObamaCare plans 'affordable'."

The letter of the law allows consumers to get subsidies only in the 14 states that set up their own exchanges, not in the rest that didn't. But the Obama administration is ignoring that and doling them out in all 50.

The administration claims that if the court rules against it in King v. Burwell, it will cause a national disaster. Don't believe it. The biggest losers will be insurance companies.

The losers, should the Court rule against the Obama Administration:

• about 5.5 million middle-class Americans who get questionable subsidies and who will see their insurance premiums quadruple if taxpayers are no longer required to pay three-quarters of their plans' actual costs; and
• big insurance companies who have seen their stock prices soar since the Healthcare.gov rollout — Humana up 66%, Cigna up 53% and Aetna up 52%.

The biggest winners, should the Obama Administration lose:

• people and businesses in the 36 non-exchange states:
• uninsured people would no longer be forced to pay the Obamacare penalty;
• 250,000 business with 50 or more full-time workers would no longer face Obamacare penalties; and
• job-seekers and part-timers hoping for full-time work from businesses that would no longer have an powerful incentive to keep their workforce below 50 full-time employees;
• the Rule of Law, if the Obama Administration is forced to "faithfully execute" his health care law; and
• the entire nation, "if Obama is forced to negotiate changes to his unworkable, expensive, overbearing law."

The court's decision, expected in June, will have no impact on the poor — about 90% of all Obamacare sign-ups — since the poor will continue to be subsidized through the federal Medicaid welfare program regardless of the court's decision.

Pity the Millennials!

Millennials were already hurting from the 2008 economic crash, which brought the U.S. economy to a standstill, and by the 2010 Obamacare law, which incentivised the creation of part-time jobs over full-time jobs. Now it appears Millennials will bear the economic consequences of dysfunctional immigration policies, too.

“Young Adults: Then and Now,” a recent Census Bureau report on how today’s 18 to 34-year-olds compare with their 1980 peers, is a discouraging set of statistics for Millennials today.
 
Despite rising educational achievement (Bachelor's degrees +6.6%), young people have lost ground economically and in terms of independence, as AEI economist Mark Perry’s summary chart (right) reveals. Compared with their 1980 cohorts, more Millennials are living under their parents' wings (+7.4%), slightly fewer live on their own (-0.4%), and substantially fewer are creating their own families (i.e., marrying -24.4%). Economically, fewer are employed (-4.3%), more live below the poverty line (+5.6%), and their median income is down (-$1,962/year).

The bigger news in the Census Bureau report, however, is in the stunning growth in the percentages of young adults who are foreign-born (6.3% in 1980 vs. 15.4% today), speak a language other than English at home (10.9% in 1980 vs. 24.6% today), and minority (21.6% in 1980 vs. 42.8% today).

The growth in "minority" percentages seems to be entirely due to the Hispanic population. The Census Bureau defines "minority" as all people classified as "Hispanic" and "all people who are races other than White."  Based on Census Bureau data (charted below), non-Hispanic "racial minorities" actually declined from 31.6 million in 1980 to 29.1 million in 2013, while "Hispanic minorities" grew substantially, from 14.6 million in 1980 to 53.9 million in 2013. (Census Bureau data doesn't tell us what percentage of the Hispanic minority is here legally vs. illegally. Perhaps it should.)

In 1986, Congress passed a law giving amnesty to those who had entered the nation illegally before 1982, and the beneficiaries of that law were mostly Hispanic. The law ushered in preferential go-to-the-head-of-the-line treatment to foreign relatives to legally migrate to the U.S. to join those who had received amnesty.

Prospective illegals read the immigration rule changes for what they were – a huge reward for lawless behavior – and the flow of illegals into the country continued unabated. Now President Obama is attempting another mass amnesty of illegals by executive order, although a federal court has blocked his attempt for the moment. [See update below.]

A new report by the business analysis firm IHS, headlined Hispanics Will Account for More than 40 Percent of the Increase in U.S. Employment in the Next Five Years, offers these predictions:

• Hispanic employment growth will average 2.6 percent per year over the next 20 years. 
• The Hispanic share of total U.S. employment will rise from 16% in 2014 to 23% in 2034. 
• By 2020, labor force growth is expected to slow to the point that the annual change in the labor force is roughly equal to the amount of net migration. 
• The number of foreign born Hispanics will grow from 22 million in 2014 to over 29 million in 2034. 

Now we learn from a Congressional Research Service memo obtained by Breitbart that illegal immigrants allowed to get Social Security Numbers as a result of Obama's executive amnesty actions could be eligible to file back tax returns and obtain up to four years of federal welfare benefits amounting to thousands of dollars: for a family with three children, the four-year federal welfare back payment would amount to $35,521.

Pity the Millennials, who were already facing stiff economic headwinds from poor public policy choices of the current and past administrations. If Obama's executive amnesty isn't stopped, they will be paying back their student loans, struggling to get their own careers going, AND paying for very generous new welfare payments to thousands of new amnestied illegals.

-----
UPDATE:  For more on what's at stake in this court case, see Immigration and the End of the Rule of Law, in which Jonathan Tobin writes, "The stakes in this argument don't merely revolve around the status of illegals. If liberal federal judges and the president are determined to trash the rule of law in this manner, we are on the verge of a full-blown constitutional crisis."

Understanding the Threat of ISIS

Graeme Wood's lengthy article in the March Atlantic magazine, What ISIS Really Wants, is an insightful primer for Westerners that helps explain what the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) is, how it differs from al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist groups, and why the West and its leaders must understand its theology if it hopes to stop ISIS's bloodthirsty rampage. It leaves the reader with the sense that ISIS is intent on a 'holy war' with the world whether the world wants one or not.

Contrary to President Obama's puzzling assertion that ISIS is 'not Islamic', "the reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic," writes Wood. "The religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam" ... a distinctly medieval teaching of Islam with a "carefully considered commitment to returning civilization to a seventh-century legal environment, and ultimately to bring[ing] about the apocalypse."

• To achieve its objectives, ISIS must control territory and establish a caliphate, which is simultaneously a political government and a vehicle for salvation. This has already happened.  ISIS "seized Mosul, Iraq, last June, and already rules an area larger than the United Kingdom," writes Wood. "Where it holds power, the state collects taxes, regulates prices, operates courts, and administers services ranging from health care and education to telecommunications." (See map.) ISIS's "social-welfare program is, at least in some aspects," adds Wood, "progressive to a degree that would please an MSNBC pundit."
• ISIS's bloodbath — unrestrained executions, crucifixions, and beheadings — is a feature, not a bug. It seeks to purify the world by (a) killing vast numbers of non-believers and (b) purging the world of Muslim apostates, including Muslim heads of state who have put secular law about Sharia law by "running for office or enforcing laws not made by God." ISIS's medieval theology demands that it continue to "expand the caliphate" and "terrorize its enemies—a holy order to scare the shit out of them with beheadings and crucifixions and enslavement of women and children, because doing so hastens victory and avoids prolonged conflict." 
• ISIS is following a clearly defined Islamic 'Prophetic methodology'. The capture of the Syrian city of Dabiq was an important step in that methodology. "Now that it has taken Dabiq, the Islamic State awaits the arrival of an enemy army there, whose defeat will initiate the countdown to the apocalpyse. ... The Prophetic narration that foretells the Dabiq battle refers to the enemy as Rome. Who 'Rome' is, now that the pope has no army, remains a matter of debate. ... Islamic State sources suggest that Rome might mean any infidel army..."  After its victory at Dabiq, the prophesy goes, the caliphate will expand to cover the entire Earth, ushering in the end of time and the ultimate victory of Islam's God.

The holy war ISIS currently pursues is as much against apostate Muslims as Westerners. ISIS's leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi "has said as much directly: in November he told his Saudi agents to "deal with the rafida [Shia] first ... then al-Sulul [Suni supporters of the Saudi monarchy] ... before the crusaders and their bases."

The good news for the West is that ISIS is currently at odds with al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban and other Muslim groups. ISIS demands of Muslims the total observance of, and submission to, the original medieval teaching of the Koran. In ISIS's eyes, other Islamic groups have committed apostasy by adopting aspects of the modern world (e.g., the Muslim Brotherhood's participation in elections in Egypt), by seeking worldly goals (e.g., al-Qaeda's goal to expel non-Muslims from the Arabian peninsula, to abolish the state of Israel, to attack the United States), or by "innovations" to the Koran (e.g., the "roughly 200 million Shia [Muslims] are marked for death" because they have adopted "innovations" on the Koran's teaching). Yet ISIS's threat to the world could grow very rapidly if other Muslim groups and sects begin aligning with ISIS.

"The ideological purity of the Islamic State has one compensating virtue," argues Wood; "it allows us to predict some of the group's actions."

Wood discusses the potential value of a full-scale military ground war to defeat ISIS at Dabiq.  "Al-Qaeda is ineradicable because it can survive, cockroach-like, by going underground. The Islamic State cannot," writes Wood. "If it loses its grip on its territory in Syria and Iraq, it will cease to be a caliphate."  If the caliphate goes away, so does ISIS's emotional appeal and claim to doctrinal and intellectual superiority within the Muslim religion.

"And yet the risks of escalation are enormous," writes Wood. "The biggest proponent of an American invasion is the Islamic State itself. ... An invasion would be a huge propaganda victory for jihadists worldwide. ... Given everything we know about the Islamic State, continuing to slowly bleed it, through air strikes and proxy warfare, appears the best of bad military options."

However this unfolds, the world is in for a long bloody ride.

That the Islamic State holds the imminent fulfillment of prophecy as a matter of dogma at least tells us the mettle of our opponent. It is ready to cheer its own near-obliteration, and to remain confident, even when surrounded, that it will receive divine succor if it stays true to the prophetic model. Ideological tools may convince some potential converts that the group's message is false, and military tools can limit its horrors. But for an organization as impervious to persuasion as the Islamic State, few measures short of these will matter, and the war may be a long one, even if it doesn't last until the end of time.

What ISIS Really Wants, filled with insight from Wood's personal interviews of Muslim scholars and imams, is worth reading in its entirely.

Study: Millions of Illegals Not Permitted to Work Got Work Permits

About 70 percent of the 5.5 million work permits issued since 2009, the year President Obama took office, were given to illegals who aren't allowed by law to have them or whose qualifications to have them are not documented, according to a new report this month by the Center for Immigration Studies.

Data obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) reveal 3.86 million work permits issued were potentially or blatantly in violation of U.S. law:

• 1,200,000 work permits were issued to aliens not allowed to work in the U.S. (e.g., tourists, foreign students);
• 960,000 work permits were issued to aliens who crossed the border illegally; and
• 1,700,000 work permits were issued to aliens whose status was unknown, not disclosed or not revealed by USCIS.

Cautioning that Congress has both an opportunity and obligation to remedy this issue, the study concludes:

These statistics indicate that the executive branch is operating a huge parallel immigrant work authorization system outside the bounds of the laws and limits written by Congress.  It inevitably reduces job opportunities for Americans. In addition, allowing work permits to be issued to illegal aliens and temporary visitors damages the integrity of the legal immigration system and encourages illegal immigration.

Illegal Immigrants Overwhelm California DMV Offices

Californians are waiting months to get an appointment with the Division of Motor Vehicles for driver's licenses and vehicle registrations. Under a new California law, illegal immigrants are now permitted to legally obtain both, and the huge surge in their numbers to do so has overwhelmed DMV offices, according to a CBS-2 Los Angeles news report.

One Californian, told he couldn't get an appointment at the Hollywood DMV before June, stood in line at the DMV office for two days in an effort to renew his driver's license before his current one expired.

[W]e found plenty of other DMV customers who had similar problems.

One driver received a letter from the DMV on Jan. 6 that advised he had to renew in person at a DMV office but had until March 8 — two months — before his current license expired. The driver went online to make an appointment, but discovered there were no appointments available within 50 miles of his home before March 8.

In fact, we found eight DMV offices, including Hollywood, Riverside, Costa Mesa, and Ventura that had nothing available before March 11, after his license would have expired.

Kudos to Millennials

Millennials have gotten their share of bad press, so it's good to see them receive a bit of praise in an article by the sage of American politics, Michael Barone. Citing statistics to buttress his case, Barone writes that "the most crime-prone age and gender cohort — 15-to-25-year-old males — are committing far fewer crimes than that cohort did in 1990."

• In the past two decades, the murder rate fell 49%, forcible rape fell 33%, robbery rate fell 48%, and aggravated assault fell 39%.
• Sexual assaults against 12-to-17-year-olds fell by more than half.
• Violent victimization of teenagers at school declined 60%.
• Binge-drinking in high school is lower than at any time since 1976, and sexual intercourse among 9th graders has declined.
• A recent Justice Department report showed the rape rate on college campuses was 0.6%.
• While unmarried parenthood has risen, teen births have been in sharp decline. The latest statistics tell us that birth rates are, unusually, up among married women and down among unmarried women.

 Barone theorizes why this trend might be happening:

I think what we are seeing is a mass changing of minds, something like the movement in Victorian England toward what historian Gertrude Himmelfarb described as “the morality that dignifies and civilizes human beings.”

My theory is that young people do what is expected of them, in two senses of the word “expected.” One is statistical expectation. Americans in 1990 expected young people, especially from disadvantaged backgrounds, to commit lots of crimes. They had been doing so, after all, for 25 years. But Rudy Giuliani and others adapting his methods reduced crime dramatically, and statistical expectations rapidly changed.

The other sense of the word “expected” is moral expectation. A parent tells a boy he is expected not to shoplift, bully, rob, rape or kill. She tells a girl she is expected not to sleep around or get pregnant. The parents of the last 25 years grew up in years of high crime, high divorce and high unmarried births. Evidently they wanted — expected — something better from their own children.

Illusory "Middle Class Economics"

While the president claims his "Middle Class Economics" is working, economist Stephen Moore lists "a dirty bunch of hidden indicators pointing to an American economy that may be in a lot worse shape than Washington is telling us," especially for the middle class families.

• It's been 10 years since Americans in the middle class got a pay raise that kept pace with inflation.
• Food, energy, tuition and health care prices have been running two to three times the official inflation rate.
• Income inequality worsened in each of Obama's first four years in office, breaking all-time highs in both 2011 and 2012.
• Small business creation hasn't been this low since 2001.
• The national debt has grown by $7.3 trillion. Total debt was $11 trillion when Obama took office; today it's $18 trillion, and additional $120,000 of debt for each U.S. worker.
• The percentage of Americans under 25 who are in the workforce is at its lowest level since the early 1970s.
• Entitlement spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare is expected to nearly double in 2024 compared to 2013.

Read full article, Obama's Illusory Economic Recovery: Official Statistics Ignore the Real Hardships Families Face, by Stephen Moore

Same-Sex Marriage Alters Job-Based Benefits

"Until recently, same-sex couples could not legally marry," reports Julie Appleby of Kaiser Health News. "Now, some are finding they must wed if they want to keep their partner's job-based health insurance and other benefits."

With same-sex marriage now legal in 35 states and the District of Columbia, some employers that formerly covered domestic partners say they will require marriage licenses for workers who want those perks.

“We’re bringing our benefits in line, making them consistent with what we do for everyone else,” said Ray McConville, a spokesman for Verizon, which notified non-union employees in July that domestic partners in states where same-sex marriage is legal must wed if they want to qualify for such benefits.

Employers making the changes say that since couples now have the legal right to marry, they no longer need to provide an alternative. Such rule changes could also apply to opposite-sex partners covered under domestic partner arrangements.

“The biggest question is: Will companies get rid of benefit programs for unmarried partners?” said Todd Solomon, a partner at McDermott Will & Emery in Chicago.

It is a reminder that "when marriage laws change, so do tax laws." Some same-sex advocates aren't happy with those changes.

It is legal for employers to set eligibility requirements for the benefits they offer workers and their families — although some states, such as California, bar employers from excluding same-sex partners from benefits. But some benefit consultants and advocacy groups say there are legal, financial and other reasons why couples may not want to marry.

Requiring marriage licenses is “a little bossy” and feels like “it’s not a voluntary choice at that point,” said Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel at Lambda Legal, an organization advocating for gay, lesbian and transgender people.

More at Once, Same-Sex Couples Couldn't Wed; Now, Some Employers Say They Must, PBS

Celebrating, Demanding School Choice

"More than 11,000 rallies and events focusing on school choice are planned this week across the country" to celebrate National School Choice Week (NSCW), reports Mary Lou Byrd.

Economist Milton Friedman first advanced the concept of K-12 education vouchers — a system in which education tax dollars are attached to each child and follow each child to the public or private school of his/her choice.

His rationale was simple: the American public school system is a government monopoly. As happens with all monopolies, public school performance and quality are in decline, and American children as a group are falling behind their peers in other nations.

Introduce competition in K-12 education (as most other industrialized nations have), and the U.S. will (a) erase the inequality of educational opportunity between rich and poor children (i.e., between children whose families can afford private schools and children whose families can not), and (b) vastly improve the quality of education delivered by all American schools, especially government public schools. Moreover, he asserted, competition will cause public schools to become more efficient.  It will apply much-needed brakes to out-of-control public education costs, since private schools typically deliver a higher quality education at about half the cost of public schools.



School choice experiments that began in the 1980s have proven Friedman correct in his assessment of expanded equality, equal opportunity, and cost-containment. Public school systems even began opening "public charter schools" as an alternative to the assigned neighborhood public school in hopes of keeping parents from choosing private school options. For all the right reasons, school choice has expanded in the U.S.

The Institute for Justice, one advocate of school choice that has "defended every major lawsuit filed against school choice programs by teachers' unions and other opponents," told the Washington Free Beacon this week,

School choice is on the rise like never before. There are now over 50 school-choice programs in 25 states that give parents both public and private school options, and about half of those programs have been enacted in just the past five years. ... [S]tate legislatures are increasingly heeding the demands of parents, many of whom are unsatisfied with the performance of their children's assigned public schools and want other options. 

Public opinion on this issue is with the parents.

A new poll released ahead of School Choice Week shows a majority of Americans‐69 percent—favors the concept of school choice. The poll, released by the American Federation for children, another partner of NSCW, also showed 63 percent support private school choice, 76 percent support public charter schools, and 65 percent believe choice and competition among schools improve education.

For all its expansion to date, however, school choice is still available to only a small percentage of the entire K-12 student population. While NSCW's celebration is certainly warranted for the gains that have been made, it also serves as a encouraging reminder of the work that remains to make Friedman's universal school choice vision a reality for all children in the U.S.

Prager U: Myths, Lies and Capitalism

Prager University (which isn't really a university) continues to produce some of the best short video "lessons" on the important issues of our time — videos that have garnered over 29 million views to date.

Below is their latest video lesson in economics, Myths, Lies and Capitalism. If you like what you see — as have almost 100,000 subscribers — check out their other videos in economics, political science, history, life studies, and religion/philosophy.

Common Core and the Wisdom Deficit

In a thought-provoking essay, veteran English teacher Michael Godsey writes that he doesn't teach much "wisdom" in his high school classes anymore, and he wonders who does now that the Common Core has taken hold in public schools.

Secular wisdom in the public schools seems like it should inherently spring from the literature that's shaped American culture. And while the students focus on how Whitman's "purpose shapes the content and style of his text" [in the Common Core]," they're obviously exposed to the words that describe his leaves of grass.  And that's good. But there is a noticeable deprioritization of literature, and a crumbling consensus regarding the nation's idea of classic literature. The Common Core requires only Shakespeare, which is puzzling if only for its singularity.

The Common Core's 10 so-called College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards focus heavily on technical skills and impersonal text analysis and leave little if any room for classical literature. Yet classical literature plays an important role in encouraging students to personally engage in, and examine, literary characters' life experiences and decision-making processes. Through literature, students had the opportunity to garner a certain wisdom from those life lessons and to evaluate truth and appropriately apply it to their own lives.

Admittedly, nothing abut the Common Core or any modern shifts in teaching philosophies is forbidding me from sharing deeper lessons found in Plato's cave or Orwell's Airstrip One. The fine print of the Common Core guidelines even mentions a few possible titles.

But this comes with constant pervasive language that favors objective analysis over personal engagement. Achieve the Core, for example, an organization founded by the lead writers of the standards, explicitly encourages schools to teach students to "extract" information so they can "note and assess patterns of writing" without relying on "any particular background information" or "students having other experiences or knowledge." This emphasis on what they call "text-dependent reading" contributes to a culture in which it's not normal to promote cultural wisdom or personal growth; in fact, it's almost awkward.

Godsey doesn't worry about his own children, or children of families who value classic literature and the life lessons they teach enough to pursue it at home. But he is concerned for the millions of young people who are not so fortunate and who will lose out on the shared wisdom that families once relied on their public schools to transmit.

Source: The Wisdom Deficit in Schools, Michael Godsey, The Atlantic, January 2015

Abortion Legislation, Pro-Life March in DC

On the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, tens of thousands gathered in Washington DC to March for Life from the National Mall to the steps of the Supreme Court—the largest of many marches in support of life in cities across the nation over the past weekend.

To coincide with the march, House GOP leaders had scheduled a vote on legislation, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, that would have banned elective abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy — the point at which unborn children can feel pain and survive premature birth.  A Quinnipiac poll on the issue in November reported 60% approval among Americans. That legislation was abruptly pulled, however, when female GOP members raised concerns about a provision in the bill that required rape victims to report the crime to law enforcement in order to qualify for an exemption.

In its place a lesser bill, "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," was passed the House in a 242-179 vote, reports the Washington Examiner.

The legislation would make it illegal for individuals to use the Affordable Care Act's insurance subsidies to buy plans that cover abortion services through the new health exchanges. Many states have already passed legislation limiting abortion coverage in exchange plans, but the measure the House approved would apply nationwide and possibly discourage insurers on the exchanges from offering abortion coverage at all.

The switch upset some who supported the stricter measure. Mollie Hemingway chastised Congress for not believing "it's competent enough to make a case against infanticide" when there is clear polling data showing broad support.

A Washington Post/ABC survey showed that 64 percent of Americans favor limiting abortion at 20 weeks of pregnancy or earlier. When just women were asked, the figure jumped to 71 percent. Such measures are popular among independents and Americans of various income levels.

Quinnipiac even asked detailed questions about the bill last go-around ... Sixty percent of voters said they would support it, while 33 percent said they were opposed. Even Democrats were evenly divided (46 percent to 47 percent) on the question. We're one of just a small handful of countries, including notorious human rights violators North Korea and china, that allow late-term abortion.

Others were less critical. "While we are disappointed that the House will not be voting on the [20-week abortion ban] today, we are pleased that the House is moving forward to stop taxpayer funding of abortion," said a joint statement by the Susan B. Anthony List, the March for Life Education and Defense Fund and the Concerned women for America Legislative Action Committees.

Growing Business-Builders Essential to Growing Economy

While the president painted a deceptively rosy picture of our economy in his State of the Union address, a more reality-based assessment was delivered recently by Gallup CEO Jim Clifton in Business Journal. He argues that American leaders, having misdiagnosed the cause and effect of economic growth and job creation, are making our economic problems worse.

"This economy is never truly coming back unless we reverse the birth and death trends of American businesses," asserts Clifton. "When small and medium-sized businesses are dying faster than they're being born, so is free enterprise. And when free enterprise dies, America dies with it."

• Approximately 6 million businesses with one or more employees in the U.S.—the real engines of economic growth—provide jobs for more than 100 million Americans and much of the tax base for everything, from military to social safety net spending.

• Since 2008, U.S. business "deaths" (shut-downs) have outnumbered new business "births" (start-ups), and we have fallen to 12th among developed nations in terms of business start ups behind countries such as Hungary, Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, Sweden, Israel and Italy.

• Fewer businesses mean declining revenues and smaller salaries to tax, followed by declining aid for the elderly and poor and declining funding for the military, for education, for infrastructure — in short, for everything.  

Citing Gallup polling data showing Americans believe the economy (59%) and federal spending and budget deficit (58%) are cause for a "great deal" of worry, Clifton argues that ordinary people seem to intuitively understand what America's leaders do not:  that businesses and entrepreneurs are the critical drivers of a strong economy.

Our leadership keeps thinking that the answer to economic growth and ultimately job creation is more innovation, and we continue to invest billions in it. But an innovation is worthless until an entrepreneur creates a business model for it and turns that innovative idea in something customers will buy. Yet current thinking tells us we're on the right track and don't need different strategies, so we continue marching down the path of national decline, believing innovation will save us.

Because we have misdiagnosed the cause and effect of economic growth, we have misdiagnosed the cause and effect of job creation. To get back on track, we need to quit pinning everything on innovation, and we need to start focusing on the almighty entrepreneurs and business builders.

Source: American Entrepreneurship: Dead or Alive?, Jim Clifton, Business Journal, January 13, 2015

Vermont Abandones Single-Payer Health System

Vermont was the only state to undertake the liberal dream of a state-wide single-payer health care system in lieu of Obamacare (as the Affordable Care Act permitted). After discovering how much it would cost, Vermont has abandoned the idea.

Designed by Jonathan Gruber, the Green Mountain Care plan enacted in 2011 (to take effect in 2017):

• abolished all private health insurance except those provided by multi-state employers;
• offered substantially higher benefits: i.e., the state would pay 94% of health costs, compared to 90% under ObamaCare's most expensive plan; and
• was to be funded entirely by tax collections, with no individual premium payments. 

But "Vermonters were stunned to discover how much their new free health care was going to cost," writes Michael Tanner in the New York Post.

•  Paying for Green Mountain Care would have required a 160% increase in state taxes by 2019, as much as $2.9 billion annually.
• The state's top income tax rate would have been raised from 8.95% to an astounding 18%. For high earners that would mean a combined federal-state income tax burden of 56%. Even lower-income Vermonters would have seen a substantial tax hike.
• Businesses would have been hit with an 11.5% state payroll tax (on top of a federal payroll tax of 15.3% to 16.2%).
• Payments to doctors and hospitals would have been cut by an estimated 16%, forcing some to leave the state and threatening the viability of local hospitals.
• And even with all of that, according to numbers released by the governor's office, the plan would be running in the red within four years.

Although "Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin, a Democrat, announced that the state was giving up and abandoning its plans for Green Mountain Care, reports Tanner, other states are currently considering legislation similar to Vermont's, including Illinois, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington.

Source: Liberal Dream of Single-Payer Health Care Dies in Vermont, New York Post, January 18, 2015

WH Tax Punishes Moms Outside Labor Force

The $320 billion tax increase the president will propose tonight in his State of the Union address reveals his "tax policy as power and punishment, tax policy as vengeance" mindset, argues Ira Stoll.

...how this administration approaches tax policy not from the point of view of raising the revenues necessary to run the government, and not from the view of creating the maximum incentives for growth and innovations, but rather as a kind of zero-sum, redistributionist means of political warfare.

A few items Mr. Stoll considers particularly punishing:

• "one earner" families would pay higher taxes so that "two-earner" families could get a $500 "second earner" tax credit along with a tripled "child care" tax credit;
• high earners who have saved money in Individual Retirement Accounts all their lives would see their retirement accounts taxed retroactively; and
• families who have saved 529 college savings accounts for their children would be taxed when they withdraw the funds to pay for their children's college bills.

Calling it "Destructive Social Engineering," the editors at National Review Online write that the tax code is already heavily biased against saving and investment, and Mr. Obama's proposal would make it even worse. Moreover, his plan takes a gratuitous slap at mothers outside the paid labor force:

Most mothers, especially of small children, prefer to work part-time or drop out of the labor force for a time. Commercial child care is the least favored option for most parents. The president's plan encourages families to do what they do not wish to do and penalizes them for refusing.

 UPDATE: See also Obama Tax Hike on College Savings Plans Breaks Middle Class Tax Pledge

The "1-in-3 College Men Would Rape" Study

"No polling organization would ever be taken seriously if its sample size was 73, and neither should this 'study' on college rape," begins Mark J. Perry.

A "study" conducted by "researchers' at the University of North Dakota and North Dakota State University ("Denying Rape but Endorsing Forceful Intercourse: Exploring Differences Among Responders") and published in the journal Violence and Gender claims to find that almost one in 3 college men would commit rape "if nobody would ever know and there wouldn't be any consequences." Oy vey, where to begin on this one? 

The study's conclusions were drawn from responses of only 73 male students, who were compensated with "extra credit for their participation" (suggesting they were all taking the same course), at a single unidentified North Dakota university.  The "margin of sampling error" for a tiny sample size of 73 is so huge as to make the results meaningless to the entire 9 million male college student population in the U.S.

Yet the conclusions fit so nicely with the Left's current campus sexual assault narrative that left-wing media shouted it out:

• Study: 1 in 3 Men Would Rape if They Wouldn't Get Caught or Face Consequences (Cosmopolitan)
• Study Finds That a Third of College Men Would Rape if They Could Get Away With It (Feministing)
•  1 in 3 College Men Admit they would Rape If We Don't Call it Rape (Jezebel)

And another liberal lie is born.

Terrorism Aided by West's Surrender to Political Correctness

In the Fox News video clip below, national security analyst KT McFarland, who is also an Institute campus speaker, discusses the changing face of terrorism and how it is being aided by Western Civilization's surrender to political correctness in failing to call terrorism what it is:

Drill, Baby, Drill Was An Effective Strategy

Liberals universally mocked when conservatives argued for more domestic drilling to increase oil and gas supplies, reduce costs to consumers, and boost the American economy. President Obama called Drill, Baby, Drill "a slogan, a gimmick, and a bumper sticker ... not a strategy."

Dependent on Middle East oil producers, Americans were paying $4 per gallon at the pump back then, and the Obama Administration refused to open federal lands for additional oil and gas drilling. So private landowners and private companies did what the federal government wouldn't do: they drilled.

Who's laughing now?

The price of a gallon of regular gasoline on Monday was $2.13 nationwide, and below $2 in 18 states.

"Of course [Obama] was wrong. We've seen oil prices fall internationally now by half since last June," said American Enterprise Institute economist Ben Zycher. "The U.S. is now the biggest oil and gas producer in the world, or almost that, and the effect has been to drive prices down as we've seen."

Fox News reporter William LaJeunesse traces liberals' energy evolution ... from scoffing to claiming credit for today's low prices:

Obama's Executive Amnesty Faces Legislative, Judicial Challenges

With funding for Homeland Security set to expire February 27, the GOP-controlled House plans to insert amendments in that department's future-funding legislation designed to block Obama's executive immigration actions. The Daily Signal reports that House leaders, after considering several proposals, have agreed to a plan that would:

• prevent Obama from implementing his recent executive actions to defer deportation for up to 5 million immigrants living in the U.S. illegally and granting them work permits,
• bar Obama from taking similar independent action in the future,
• strip protections provided to "Dreamers" under Obama's 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, and
• restore the "Secure Communities" enforcement program that Obama ended with his executive actions.

Meanwhile, 25 states have filed a lawsuit detailing the billions of dollars in costs that Obama's executive action imposes on states unless the court stops the amnesty:

More than 1,100 pages of documents submitted by Texas and two dozen other states suing to stop the amnesty detail the costs in dept, and include sworn affidavits from state officials, federal immigration officers and others arguing that the amnesty will increase illegal immigration, leaving the states with even bigger burdens. [snip]

Judge [Andrew] Hanen, who sits in Brownsville, Texas, will hear oral arguments in the case Thursday [Jan 15], with the fate of Mr. Obama's most ambitious executive action to date riding on the outcome.

The case turns on two key factors: first, whether Texas and the 24 other states that have joined the lawsuit can show they or their residents stand to suffer from the president's policies; and second, whether Mr. Obama's actions go beyond case-by-case discretion and tread on Congress' power to write laws and set policy. [snip]

Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow for constitutional studies at CATO, said the case should test just how broadly states are able to challenge federal laws on behalf of their residents. Mr. Shapiro said given gridlock and the penchant for presidents to act on their own, the case could have a huge impact.