<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; War on Women</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/war-on-women/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 07:56:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>The Real War on Women</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/mark-tapson/the-real-war-on-women-2/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-real-war-on-women-2</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/mark-tapson/the-real-war-on-women-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2014 05:20:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark Tapson]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[akp]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sharia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[turkey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Women]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=246515</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Their oppression under Islam intensifies.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/th.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-246566" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/th.jpg" alt="th" width="300" height="203" /></a>It’s been a busy week for the oppression of women under Islam.</p>
<p>A day or two before Americans sat down to turkey dinner on Thanksgiving, Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Erdogan – President Obama’s best friend in the Middle East, a man who has made it <a href="http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/09/there-is-no-moderate-islam.html">abundantly clear</a> how he feels about moderate Islam and who has <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/29/turkey-women-laugh_n_5630416.html">warned</a> that women shouldn’t laugh in public – further endeared himself to feminists everywhere at a summit hosted by an Istanbul-based women’s group when he <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/25/world/europe/turkey-erdogan-women/">declared</a> that a woman cannot do every job that a man can do because “it is against her delicate nature.” He dug the hole deeper for himself by <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/turkish-president-equality-between-men-and-women-is-against-nature-9879993.html">claiming</a> that Islam dictated motherhood to be the primary role of women. However, he insisted that his government has always supported equal rights for women and always would.</p>
<p>If that’s true, then perhaps his government could turn its attention to the <a href="http://m.clarionproject.org/news/turkey-epidemic-murders-women-seeking-divorce">epidemic</a> of honor murders being committed against Turkish women, many of whom were murdered for seeking to divorce their husbands. Last month in Istanbul, a young mother in the middle of divorce proceedings was <a href="http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/woman-murdered-by-husband-in-istanbul-.aspx?PageID=238&amp;NID=73418&amp;NewsCatID=341">stabbed to death </a>by her husband in front of their child. Her murder is the latest of 287 cases documented by a Turkish human rights and advocacy group known as “We Will Stop Women Murders.”</p>
<p>As <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/19/turkish-women-divorce_n_6133470.html">reported by <em>Huffington Post</em></a>, the numbers are up from 238 last year, including the slaying of a 30-year old mother of two seeking a divorce. Her abusive husband simply walked into the hair salon where she worked and stabbed her to death without a word. This was after having abused her, forcing a miscarriage, and holding her hostage in their home.</p>
<p>Despite its modern reputation, Turkey has some of the highest levels of violence against women in Europe (as well as some of the lowest levels of <a href="http://online.wsj.com/articles/eu-urges-members-to-stop-stalling-with-turkey-1412764978">female participation in politics</a> and education). Rights activists claim that violence against women has skyrocketed since 2003 when the Islamist AKP party came into power. According to the Turkish Ministry of Justice, from 2003 until 2010, there was a 1,400 percent increase in the number of murders of women.</p>
<p>“The AKP government came under harsh criticism after the release of this information,” <a href="http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/09/turkeywomenmurder.html">says Pinar Tremblay</a>, a Turkish journalist. “So in a last-ditch effort to save its reputation, [after 2010] it started altering the numbers.” The government simply did not report on thousands of women who were murdered, Tremblay says.</p>
<p>She puts forth three reasons why have the numbers increased so dramatically. First, the value of women in Turkish society has always been low, but it has sunk even lower in the ten years under the AKP. Second is the notion of honor; Turkish society traditionally blames the woman for a variety of offenses to honor such as seeking a divorce, and the harm done to a man’s reputation is considered a partial or complete justification for murder. As the Freedom Center’s own Robert Spencer <a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/09/does-islam-justify-honor-killings">writes</a>, “No passage in the Koran discusses honor killings, but Muslim clerics justify them and secular Muslims either do not punish them or pass laws to mitigate punishment for them. With this, Muslims make honor killings a part of Islam.”</p>
<p>The third reason is leniency in punishment for honor violence. “If the murderer behaves properly, he can receive amnesty in a year or two,” says Tremblay. “This leniency feeds from the fact that a woman’s life is worthless in Turkey and encourages other murderers. Indeed, there have been police reports that perpetrators have Googled possible punishments they might receive before killing their woman,” she added.</p>
<p>Meanwhile in India, TV presenter and actress Gauhar Khan was <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/12/01/tv-presenter-assaulted-for-showing-to-much-skin-report-says/?intcmp=features">assaulted</a> last week by an audience member who thought her clothing bared too much skin. “Being a Muslim woman, she should not have worn such a short dress,” the man <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/horrified-tv-presenter-attacked-live-4726226">reportedly said</a> when arrested for assault.</p>
<p>But Khan’s slap on the cheek was a slap on the wrist compared to Bollywood actress Veena Malik, who was <a href="http://www.christianpost.com/news/pakistan-sentences-bollywood-actress-to-26-years-in-prison-for-marriage-scene-depicting-the-prophet-muhammads-daughter-130370/"><span><span><span>sentenced</span></span></span></a><span><span> to 26 years in prison for blasphemy by Pakistan’s anti-terrorism court for appearing in a televised wedding scene based on the marriage of the Muslim prophet Muhammad’s daughter. Depictions of Muhammad are considered blasphemous under Islam. Malik has been a target of Islamic fundamentalists ever since a 2011 <span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-MyoBmGF_g"><span><span>video interview</span></span></a></span> in which she boldly lashed out at a mufti’s disapproval of her un-Islamic dress and behavior.<span> </span></span></span></p>
<p><span><span><span><span><span>The </span></span></span>court also convicted Malik’s husband and the host of the show which aired the offending scene. Both were sentenced to 26 years in jail as well, and all three will have to pay an additional fine of nearly $50,000, surrender their passports and sell their properties. “The malicious acts of the proclaimed offenders ignited the sentiments of all the Muslims of the country,” the court order read, “and hurt their feelings, which cannot be taken lightly and there is need to strictly curb such tendency.” </span></span></p>
<p>Such mistreatment of women isn’t limited to Islamic territories. In England (although some could argue that England itself is now an Islamic territory), news broke last week that thirteen Somali men were <a href="https://bbc1.azurewebsites.net/news/uk-england-bristol-30095960">convicted</a> of a string of child sex abuse crimes in Bristol, and one of the convicted told the court that sharing girls for sex “was part of Somali culture” and “a religious requirement.” To <a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/11/uk-muslim-rape-gang-member-says-raping-girls-a-religious-requirement">quote</a> Spencer again, “The savage exploitation of girls and young women is, unfortunately, a cross-cultural phenomenon, but only in Islamic law does it carry divine sanction”:</p>
<blockquote><p>According to Islamic law, Muslim men can take “captives of the right hand” (Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 33:50). The Qur’an says: “O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war” (33:50). 4:3 and 4:24 extend this privilege to Muslim men in general. The rape of captive women is also sanctioned in Islamic tradition.</p></blockquote>
<p>The rape of captive women is the ongoing nightmare currently faced by the thousands of Kurdish and Yazidi women <a href="http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=21795">enslaved</a> by the Islamic State. The practice “accords with Islamic law and the parameters of Islamic morality,” as Spencer <a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/11/uk-muslim-rape-gang-member-says-raping-girls-a-religious-requirement">noted</a> in relation to a female Kuwaiti politician who <a href="http://www.translatingjihad.com/2011/06/video-kuwaiti-activist-i-hope-that.html">spoke out</a> in favor of the sexual slavery of non-Muslim women.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, in the Western media, the focus on the oppression of women is reserved for such idiocy as the “unattainable” <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/30/disney-princess-real-waistline_n_6076634.html">waistlines on Disney princesses</a>. Now that’s a <em>real</em> war on women.</p>
<p>*</p>
<p><em>Don&#8217;t miss Shillman Journalism Fellow <strong>Mark Tapson</strong> on the <strong>Glazov Gang</strong> discussing<strong> Fighting the Culture War</strong>:</em></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/v5gR4E5UPB8" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.   </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><strong>Subscribe</strong></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <em>The Glazov Gang</em>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>Facebook.</strong></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/mark-tapson/the-real-war-on-women-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>24</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ben Shapiro: Women Are Winning the War on Women</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/truthrevolt-org/ben-shapiro-women-are-winning-the-war-on-women/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ben-shapiro-women-are-winning-the-war-on-women</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/truthrevolt-org/ben-shapiro-women-are-winning-the-war-on-women/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2014 04:56:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[TruthRevolt.org]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Campus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pay gap]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rape]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reproductive rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sexual assault]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Women]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=243591</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Truth Revolt video. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong><span style="color: #000000;">Ben Shapiro takes on the enormous falsehood that women are under assault in America. Reality check: The wage gap, the war on reproductive rights and the explosion of sexual assault on campus are all just lies made up by Democrats to hang on to power. See the video and transcript below. </span></strong></p>
<p><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/yNMiTxso4Q0" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p style="color: #000000;">TRANSCRIPT:</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">REALITY CHECK: WOMEN ARE WINNING THE WAR ON WOMEN</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">Are you ready gang? The stage has been set for Hillary Clinton’s big presidential run. For months, leftists in politics and the media have told Americans that the nation’s women are under unprecedented threat: they’re in danger of being raped on our college campuses, assaulted in their homes, and underpaid in the workplace.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">Presumably, the only one who can save us is a woman who grew up rich, married a famous politician, rode his coattails to First Lady status, became a senator because of her husband, became Secretary of State because of her husband and now will save us because of her husband.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">Here’s the reality: things have never been better for women in the United States.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">Let’s start with the supposed income gap. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, like all the other Democrat leaders, says that women make $0.78 for every dollar a man makes.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">This is nonsense. Reality &#8211; Women work less hours than men. Women who work 40 hour weeks earn 88% of what men make.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">It’s also nonsense, by the way, that women and men who work more than 40 hours per week work the same number of hours overall. Women who are married and have children, it turns out, often take time out to have their kids. Which is what my wife did. She&#8217;s in medical school. She took a year off to have our baby. Which is why single women who haven’t married earn 96% of what men make.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">That other four percent gap includes the fact that men work riskier jobs, and take on jobs with higher risk of firing. Statistically, men actually prefer risk while women prefer security when it comes to labor. Men also tend to spend their college years on non-liberal arts subjects in greater numbers than women, and are more likely to ask the boss for a raise.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">Actually, the numbers are better than that for women. As Time magazine reported in 2010, “in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the United States, the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% <em>higher</em> than those of the guys in their peer group.” 58% of those who have post-bachelors degrees are women.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">As Mark Perry and Andrew Biggs write in the Wall Street Journal, the numbers President Obama and his allies cite are “fundamentally misleading and economically illogical.”</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">Okay, now as for the notion that women are battling against on so-called “war on reproductive rights.” First, nobody has the right to kill an unborn child. Second, contraception has never been cheaper or more widely available. Congratulations! Condoms cost $0.20 per pop. So let&#8217;s say you&#8217;re really randy and that means that you want to go at it five times a week. That&#8217;s a buck a week folks. That&#8217;s four bucks a month. Are you really going to go broke on four bucks a month? Birth control pills cost no more than $50 per month. Requiring a nun to pay for your birth control is not, it turns out, a right. It’s more like a violation of the nun’s rights to religious freedom.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">On to sexual assault. Public awareness of sexual assault and domestic abuse is obviously a worthwhile cause with which everyone agrees – although it&#8217;s worth noting that there has never been a rapist in human history who decided not to rape thanks to a public service announcement from Joe Biden. But the implication that sexual assault is on the rise, that&#8217;s nonsense too. From 1995 to 2010, sexual assault victimizations declined 58%. Domestic violence fell by 63% between 1994 and 2012, and serious intimate partner violence against women dropped 72% from 1994 to 2011.</p>
<p style="color: #000000;">So, here&#8217;s the deal, it’s a great time to be a woman. Which means that we don’t need Hillary Clinton and her magical X chromosomes to save the day.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/truthrevolt-org/ben-shapiro-women-are-winning-the-war-on-women/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>70</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Janet Yellen Shills for the Democrats</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/janet-yellen-shills-for-the-democrats/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=janet-yellen-shills-for-the-democrats</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/janet-yellen-shills-for-the-democrats/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2014 04:42:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bruce Thornton]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign slogans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inequality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[myth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Progressives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Women]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=243311</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Chairman of the Federal Reserve indulges a destructive leftist lie. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/janet-yellen.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-243314" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/janet-yellen-450x337.jpg" alt="janet-yellen" width="278" height="208" /></a>At a conference last week, Federal Reserve Chairman Janet Yellen recycled a shopworn Democrat talking point about the supposed crisis of income inequality and stalled economic mobility. “The extent and continuing increase in inequality in the United States greatly concerns me,” Yellen said, going on to wonder “whether this trend is compatible with values rooted in our nation’s history,” especially “equality of opportunity.”</p>
<p>Like the mythic “war on women,” this progressive sound bite is misleading and duplicitous, based on statistical sleight of hand. Worse yet, it is a pretext for more and more government expansion and intrusion into the economy, and for more and more redistribution of income through entitlement programs. It makes one wonder what one of the most powerful government officials impacting the economy, supposedly a politically neutral technocrat, is doing recycling Democratic campaign slogans.</p>
<p>The “income inequality” claim depends on ignoring numerous data that contradict it. For one thing, it glosses over the mobility among the 5 income cohorts over time, assuming that the same people are rich or poor year after year. But as Stephen Moore and James Pierson <a href="http://spectator.org/articles/58135/dont-eat-rich">point out</a>, “In America they [the rich] don’t generally stay rich for long. A few years ago the Department of Treasury examined what happens to the wealth of families across several generations. Guess what: the poor got richer and the rich got poorer. The incomes of poor households rose 80 percent from 1987 to 1996 and then more than doubled from 1996 to 2005. The richer people were at the start of this period, the more income losses they suffered in subsequent years.”</p>
<p>The Treasury study indeed confirms this mobility, finding that between 1996 and 2005 over half of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile. Half of taxpayers in the bottom quintile in 1996 moved to a higher income group in 2005. Meanwhile, only 25% of the richest 1/100 of 1% in 1996 were still that rich in 2005. This mobility has indeed stalled, but not for “several decades,” as Yellen claimed, and not because of the sinister machinations of the wealthy. Its cause rather is the sluggish economic growth after the recession ended 5 years ago, and the blame for that in large part falls on Obama and the Democrats’ regulatory overreach, trillion-dollar deficits, “you didn’t build that” anti-business rhetoric, and redistributionist economic policies. Get the feds out of the way of the economy so it can grow, and we will see income growth and mobility again.</p>
<p>The “income inequality” meme ignores other facts as well. It focuses only on “money income,” neglecting the value of government transfers like Medicaid, Electronic Benefit Transfer cards (formerly known as food stamps and welfare checks), emergency-room health care, Section 8 housing subsidies, and the Earned Income Tax Credit, all of which boost the buying power of the statistical poor and lower middle class. For the middle class, “money income” ignores the value of employer-provided fringe benefits such as health care. As for the rich, “money income” ignores the highly progressive taxes they pay to fund those government programs. As Gary Burtless of the Brookings Institution <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2014/05/20-rising-inequality-1920s-measuring-income-burtless">writes</a>, “To disregard the impact of transfers and progressive taxation on the distribution of income and family well-being is to ignore America’s most expensive efforts to lessen the gap between the nation’s rich, middle class, and poor.”</p>
<p>Finally, consumption––how much people spend–– is more revealing than “money income” as a measurement of economic wellbeing. In fact, consumption rates of the lowest income quintile have increased over the years, reaching nearly twice of income in 2005. As a result, Kip Hagopian and Lee Ohanian <a href="http://www.hoover.org/research/mismeasure-inequality">write</a>, “A family claiming $22,300 in income in 2005 would have reported about $44,000 in expenditures in that year. As noted earlier, the gap between reported income and consumption is filled by various categories of government transfer payments (including Medicaid, food stamps, subsidized housing, the Earned Income Tax Credit, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, etc.), family savings, imputed income from owner-occupied housing, barter, support from family and friends, and income from the underground economy.” Indeed, if one takes into account consumption, the statistical <a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty">poor enjoy living standards higher</a> than the average European. The obsession on “money income” ignores how well all Americans live.</p>
<p>Yellen’s second claim, that income inequality contradicts “values rooted in our nation’s history” like “equality of opportunity,” is equally muddled. If we look at the political order of the Constitution––our most important “national values”–– income inequality was taken for granted, a reflection of an unchanging and flawed human nature. In his famous comments on “factions” in <em>Federalist</em> 10, James Madison wrote, “As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. <em>The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests.</em> <em>The protection of these faculties is the first object of government</em> [emphasis added]. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.” Hence “the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society.” Income inequality is a fact of life, not a failure of government or the economy.</p>
<p>Indeed, the clashing interests of those with property and those without, and the political discord they create, were continually on the minds of the delegates to the Constitutional convention. New Yorker Gouverneur Morris, arguing for an appointed rather than a popularly elected Senate, frankly said, “The Rich will strive to establish their dominion and enslave the rest. They always did. They always will. The proper security against them is to form them into a separate interest. The two forces will then control each other . . . By thus combining and setting apart, the aristocratic interest, the popular interest will be combined against it. There will be a mutual check and mutual security.”</p>
<p>Thus the “mixed government” of the Constitution was designed <em>not</em> to eliminate property inequality, which is rooted in the differences of talent, hard work, virtue, and luck among people. Rather, it was created to prevent <em>any </em>faction, whether the rich or the poor, from taking control of the government in order to aggrandize its own power and serve its own interests at the expense of others’. Only that way can the freedom, property, and opportunity of all be kept safe.</p>
<p>Our “national values,” then, are for equality of opportunity, not equality of result. Yellen pays lip service to the former, yet that sentiment contradicts the whole complaint about income inequality, which is about result, not opportunity. Like most progressives, Yellen is really concerned with equality of result, something the Founders abhorred, for a tyrannical government always promises the masses equality of result, in the form of a redistribution of property, in order to secure the support of the people for centralizing and increasing government power and limiting personal freedom. But equality of result, as the sorry and bloody history of communism shows, is contrary to the reality of human nature and the unequal distribution of talent and character. As Plato wrote, it is “numerical” equality rather than “proportionate equality,” which takes into account the differences of character and virtue that exist among people, and “assigns in proportion what is fitting to each. Indeed, it is precisely this which constitutes for us political justice.”</p>
<p>America’s “national values” have traditionally included equality of opportunity, not equality of result. People should be free to rise to whatever levels their differing talents and virtues can take them. Differences of wealth over time and over large populations reflect those differences more than any unjust manipulation of the economy by the rich. Moreover, in a dynamic, free-market economy, the success of the well off improves the well being of the rest, whether by creating jobs or paying the trillions of dollars in taxes that fund the redistributive programs that have allowed millions of American to enjoy a material existence only dreamed of by most of the human race.</p>
<p>We still have equality of opportunity, whether measured by the millions of ordinary people who create and run businesses big and small, or the 11 million illegal aliens who didn’t risk their lives coming to America because it lacks economic opportunity. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve has no business indulging a progressive canard that exploits envy and resentment for electoral gain.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.   </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><strong>Subscribe</strong></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <em>The Glazov Gang</em>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>Facebook.</strong></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/janet-yellen-shills-for-the-democrats/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>32</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Monica Lewinsky Wasn’t a Victim &#8212;- America Was</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/monica-lewinsky-wasnt-a-victim-america-was/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=monica-lewinsky-wasnt-a-victim-america-was</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/monica-lewinsky-wasnt-a-victim-america-was/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2014 04:58:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[essay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Monica Lewinsky]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vanity Fair]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Women]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=225295</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Before Clinton abused Monica, he abused America.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/monica-lewinsky-6.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-225297" alt="LEWINSKY GINSBURG" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/monica-lewinsky-6-311x350.jpg" width="249" height="280" /></a>Monica Lewinsky wasn’t brought back from a cul-de-sac of the ‘90s celebrity scandal universe, where Kato Kaelin still sleeps on a couch, Amy Fisher stalks quiet Long Island streets and Tonya Harding skates around in circles, in order to hurt Bill and Hillary.</span></p>
<p><i>Vanity Fair</i> brought Monica in to help them.</p>
<p>That’s why it’s Monica’s essay in <i>Vanity Fair</i> and not the essays of any of the women whom Bill Clinton sexually harassed and whom Hillary Clinton tried to silence.</p>
<p>Hillary’s political career was built on Monica Lewinsky and cancer. Rudy Giuliani’s cancer. Without Monica and cancer, instead of running for president she would be delivering a commencement address at Bennington College and the dean would be introducing her as Hillary Rodham.</p>
<p>Monica made Bill and Hillary into the victims of their own misbehavior. <i>Vanity Fair</i> is hoping that Democrats forget the political dysfunction, sellouts and blatant corruption of the Clinton years. Its editorial staff is hoping that they’ll get angry about Ken Starr and “privacy violations” all over again.</p>
<p>But Bill and Hillary aren’t victims. They’re two dysfunctional people with a knack for making their personal problems into the country’s problem. They’ve done it before and they’re doing it again. They deal with their personal problems, just as they dealt with Monica Lewinsky, through abuses of power.</p>
<p>Monica was disposable. If it hadn’t been her, it would have been someone else. Bill and Hillary treated her the way they treated any woman who became an obstacle to their political ambitions. That’s a step up from how the Kennedy clan treated inconvenient women by drowning them, drugging them or lobotomizing them.</p>
<p>Feminists are debating whether Hillary was right to call Monica a &#8220;narcissistic loony toon&#8221; instead of discussing the private War on Women she waged against any woman complaining about her husband’s behavior. It’s a cheap distraction from what really matters. The outrage over the War on Women, ‘90s edition, featuring stops at the Tailhook Symposium and Anita Hill’s Department of Education digs, did not extend to abuses by powerful liberal men. There was one set of feminist rules for a drunken Navy lieutenant in Vegas and another for the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States.</p>
<p>As long as he was a liberal.</p>
<p>Monica isn’t a victim either. Liberal feminists were hypocritical in their treatment of her, but they were far more hypocritical in their treatment of the women Bill Clinton sexually harassed. Talking about how unfair they were to Monica lets them off the hook for how unfair they were to women who did not want a sexual relationship with Bill Clinton and who demonstrated more authentic feminist creds by speaking out about it than the professional liberal feminists who smeared and demeaned them to protect Bill.</p>
<p>There was a power imbalance between Bill and Monica. And Bill Clinton is a compulsive manipulator, but Monica wasn’t a child. She chose to have an affair with another woman’s husband and was humiliated because that man was the President of the United States. The outcome was inevitable.</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton was right to call her a &#8220;narcissistic loony toon&#8221;, but Hillary, running for president on a platform of her own Monica-manufactured celebrity, is an even more narcissistic loony toon than Monica could ever aspire to be. And Bill Clinton, who chases cameras as avidly as he chases women, is the king of all narcissistic loony toons.</p>
<p>The real victim wasn’t any of these three repulsive characters. It was the United States of America.</p>
<p>The American people wanted good government and instead got a demented duo whose uncontrolled appetite for power, admiration and everything else, including White House furniture, knew no limit.</p>
<p>And they’re still the victims today.</p>
<p>There are two types of victims. There are those Americans who consented to have a political relationship with Bill and Hillary. Twice. And there are those who didn’t.</p>
<p>There are the Monica Lewinskys and the Juanita Broaddricks.</p>
<p>There are Americans who were raped by the Clinton Administration. And there are Americans who chose to be abused by it and would still be willing to be abused by it all over again.</p>
<p>Obama and Clinton voters have much in common with Monica Lewinsky. They caused their own problems and yet, like Monica, they whine about being unable to find work. They blame Republicans for humiliating them by revealing their disgusting relationship with a politician who is a serial liar.</p>
<p>And they act as if the whole thing is someone else’s fault.</p>
<p>They whine that if it hadn’t been for the Republicans no one would know just how disgusting their affair with the man who wrecked the country’s national defense, sold pardons like hotcakes and used his own adultery to position his wife’s presidential bid was.</p>
<p>They complain that if Republicans would just shut up about Benghazi, the national debt, the return of Al Qaeda, the imperial presidency and the constant lies leaking out of the White House, no one would judge them for that faded Obama-Biden sticker on the back bumper of their taxpayer subsidized Prius.</p>
<p>They’re not the victims. Victims don’t choose to be victims.</p>
<p>It’s the women who didn’t accede to Bill Clinton’s sexual demands and were smeared by Hillary Clinton for daring to complain about it… who are the victims. It’s the Americans who didn’t play Monica Lewinsky at the ballot box, surrendering to Bill Clinton’s charms while ignoring a funny little man in a cave who was threatening to attack America after bombing its embassies, who are the victims.</p>
<p>Monica Lewinsky is the Clinton and Obama voter, narcissistic to a fault and incapable of acknowledging fault, feeling victimized but unable to point to the real perpetrator, blaming Republicans for exposing her sordid behavior and that of the man who was taking advantage of her, and then complaining that she can’t find work.</p>
<p>Who needs a special essay from Monica Lewinsky when any Obama voter will tell you the same story?</p>
<p>The real victims of Bill, Barack and Hillary are the hardworking Americans who do the best they can for their families and their country, who don’t make excuses for their misbehavior or the misbehavior of their politicians, who work hard at their jobs and work harder to raise their children.</p>
<p>They are the victims of bad governments and bad politicians they didn’t vote for. They are harassed and assaulted by a corrupt political machine, a power-mad bureaucracy and a degenerate Washington establishment. They did not consent to be abused by Bill, Barack, Hillary, the EPA, the DOJ, the BLM, the FEC, the IRS and every other alphabet soup agency out of D.C.</p>
<p>And they are smeared and demonized when they complain about it.</p>
<p>They are the real victims of the abusers, exploiters and manipulators in Washington D.C. whose lust for power knows no limits. And they are also the victims of the Monica Lewinsky voters who whine and make faces, but refuse to end their political affair with the abusers of their country.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/monica-lewinsky-wasnt-a-victim-america-was/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>201</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Woman Sexually Harassed by Clinton says: &#8220;Hillary is the War on Women.&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/woman-sexually-harassed-by-clinton-says-hillary-is-the-war-on-women/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=woman-sexually-harassed-by-clinton-says-hillary-is-the-war-on-women</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/woman-sexually-harassed-by-clinton-says-hillary-is-the-war-on-women/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:37:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Point]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sexual harassment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Women]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=219092</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["She singlehandedly orchestrated every one of the investigations of all these women."]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/121020084541-11-hillary-clinton-1020-horizontal-gallery.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-219094" alt="121020084541-11-hillary-clinton-1020-horizontal-gallery" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/121020084541-11-hillary-clinton-1020-horizontal-gallery-450x253.jpg" width="450" height="253" /></a></p>
<p>The Blair Papers which the media initially covered up and then diverted attention from, were quite revealing when it came <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/hillary-blamed-republicans-for-bill-clintons-affair-with-monica/">to Hillary&#8217;s attitude toward not only her husband&#8217;</a>s sexual misconduct, but even those of Republicans like Bob Packwood.</p>
<blockquote><p>Hillary  Clinton defended her husband in a phone call with Blair. She said her husband had made a mistake by fooling around with the “narcissistic loony toon” Lewinsky, but was driven to it in part by his political adversaries, the loneliness of the presidency, and her own failures as a wife.</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton told Blair she had received “a letter from a psychologist who does family therapy and sexual infidelity problems,” who told the Yale Law School graduate, “most men with fidelity problems [were] raised by two women and felt conflicted between them.”</p>
<p>“She thinks she was not smart enough, not sensitive enough, not free enough of her own concerns and struggles to realize the price he was paying.”</p></blockquote>
<p>Hillary Clinton is pathetic, makes constant excuses for Bill Clinton, blames herself and blames the women that her husband goes after.</p>
<p>As a feminist role model, she&#8217;s right up there with her aide, Huma Abedin.</p>
<blockquote><p>In a Dec. 3, 1993, diary entry, Blair recounted a conversation with the first lady about “Packwood”—a reference to then-Sen. Bob Packwood, an influential Republican on health care embroiled in a sexual harassment scandal.</p>
<p>“HC tired of all those whiney women, and she needs him on health care,” wrote Blair.</p></blockquote>
<p>Now Kathleen Willey, <a href="http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/clinton-volunteer-hillary-is-the-war-on-women/">one of the women harassed by Bill Clinton</a> is speaking out against Hillary.</p>
<blockquote><p>Kathleen Willey, the former volunteer aide to Bill Clinton who says she was sexually harassed by the president in the 1990s, is now sounding the alarm about the potential danger of Hillary Clinton becoming president.</p>
<p>“Hillary Clinton is the war on women, and that’s what needs to be exposed here,” Willey said Sunday night on Aaron Klein’s WABC Radio show.</p>
<p>“The point is what this woman is capable of doing to other women while she’s running a campaign basically on women’s issues. It just doesn’t make any sense. She singlehandedly orchestrated every one of the investigations of all these women [who accused her husband of sexual crimes]. They’re the people reminding us of how sordid this all is.”</p>
<p>And Willey also lashed into feminist organizations who never seem interested in the harassment against her by the Clintons.</p>
<p>“All of these women’s groups, they’re all pro-Hillary, they need to … talk to someone like me and listen here, what Hillary Clinton has done to me and many, many, many other women. They are so hypocritical, it’s unbelievable. And this is the woman that wants to be president.”</p></blockquote>
<p>While it&#8217;s Hillary running this time, not Bill, does anyone really think that another eight years of Bill hanging around the White House won&#8217;t lead to more sexual harassment complaints and more sex scandals?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/woman-sexually-harassed-by-clinton-says-hillary-is-the-war-on-women/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>44</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>2 Obama Judges Say Constitution Entitles Wife-Killer to Sex Change Operation</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/2-obama-judges-say-constitution-entitles-psycho-wife-killer-to-sex-change-operation/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=2-obama-judges-say-constitution-entitles-psycho-wife-killer-to-sex-change-operation</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/2-obama-judges-say-constitution-entitles-psycho-wife-killer-to-sex-change-operation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Jan 2014 21:31:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Point]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judicial nominees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sex change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tranny rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[transgender]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Women]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214511</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Robert Kosilek strangled his wife to death so severely that he nearly cut off her head. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/article-2541648-1AC2296700000578-9_634x499.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-216736" alt="article-2541648-1AC2296700000578-9_634x499" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/article-2541648-1AC2296700000578-9_634x499-444x350.jpg" width="444" height="350" /></a></p>
<p>The liberal Constitution is a very strange place. There&#8217;s no Freedom of Religion in it, but there is <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2541648/Federal-appeals-court-upholds-sex-change-surgery-Mass-inmate.html">a Constitutional right to sex change </a>operations.</p>
<p><a href="http://murderpedia.org/male.K/k/kosilek-robert.htm">Robert Kosilek</a> was a psycho transvestite who strangled his wife to death so severely that he nearly cut off her head. Then he dumped her naked body in a mall parking lot.</p>
<p>Cheryl McCaul had met Robert Kosilek and felt sorry for him. And she paid for it with her life. The cowardly Kosilek tried to claim that he had murdered his wife in self-defense after she caught him trying on her clothes. Today Robert Kosilek would probably have become a gay rights cause celeb, but this was 1990, so he went to jail instead.</p>
<p>In prison, Robert Kosilek began calling himself Michelle and demanding a sex change operation. The prison made the mistake of giving him hormones, which laid the groundwork for his demand. Once any form of transvestism is treated as some kind of medical necessity, then you end up having to accept the whole thing; just like with civil unions and gay marriage.</p>
<p>But there&#8217;s no War on Women to see here.</p>
<blockquote><p> A federal appeals court on Friday upheld a judge&#8217;s ruling granting a taxpayer-funded sex change operation for a transgender inmate serving a life sentence for a murder conviction, saying receiving medically necessary treatment is a constitutional right that must be protected &#8216;even if that treatment strikes some as odd or unorthodox.&#8217;</p>
<p>U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Judges O. Rogeriee Thompson and William Kayatta Jr. said in their ruling that courts must not shrink from their obligation to enforce the constitutional rights of all people, including prisoners.</p>
<p>&#8216;And receiving medically necessary treatment is one of those rights, even if that treatment strikes some as odd or unorthodox,&#8217; they wrote.</p>
<p>One member of the three-judge appeals panel, Judge Juan Torruella, disagreed, saying in a separate opinion the ruling went beyond the boundaries of protections offered under the Eighth Amendment.</p></blockquote>
<p>Judge Juan Torruella is a Reagan judge. Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson is a freakshow Obama judge. Judge William Kayatta Jr. is another Obama judges.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/2-obama-judges-say-constitution-entitles-psycho-wife-killer-to-sex-change-operation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>65</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ObamaCare Doubles Premiums for Young Women</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obamacare-doubles-premiums-for-young-women/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obamacare-doubles-premiums-for-young-women</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obamacare-doubles-premiums-for-young-women/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Oct 2013 22:18:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[The Point]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obamacare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Women]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=208637</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Healthy young women will see their premiums rise by an average of almost 200 percent]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Sandra-Fluke-screenshot.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-208640" alt="Sandra-Fluke-screenshot" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Sandra-Fluke-screenshot-450x252.jpg" width="450" height="252" /></a></p>
<p>Because <a href="http://freebeacon.com/study-average-premiums-for-young-women-to-increase-193/">it&#8217;s not really about Sandra Fluke&#8217;s birth control</a>. It&#8217;s about funding another expansion of the welfare state. It&#8217;s a tax hike looped through private companies. It&#8217;s wealth redistribution through the back door with a government mandate.</p>
<p>The vast majority of the population will be screwed by ObamaCare. A small number of people with medical problems who have jobs will benefit, but it would have been far easier and cheaper to pay to cover them. This is still about the Government Class and its insatiable welfare lust.</p>
<p>War on Women? The young women <a href="http://sweetness-light.com/archive/young-women-o-care-premiums-to-increase-200">targeted for this in ads don&#8217;t benefit from it</a>.</p>
<blockquote><p>Healthy young women will see their premiums rise by an average of almost 200 percent under Obamacare, with increases occurring in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, according to a new study.</p>
<p>Earlier this month, the American Action Forum released an analysis that found the average 30-year-old male nonsmoker would see his premiums rise 260 percent.</p>
<p>Using the same metrics, the organization found that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would be just as harsh on women trying to purchase bronze level plans, the cheapest insurance available in the marketplace.</p>
<p>Overall, states averaged a 193 percent increase in premiums for 30-year-old female nonsmokers.</p>
<p>For example, a woman earning $31,597.50 would receive a 23 percent subsidy, totaling $653. However, her yearly premium would still be $2,186, compared to the $218.47 penalty she would incur in 2014 for not having insurance.</p></blockquote>
<p>Welcome to ObamaCare. You&#8217;re doing your part to subsidize an unsustainable welfare state.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obamacare-doubles-premiums-for-young-women/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>38</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Real &#8216;War on Women&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/thomas-sowell/the-real-war-on-women/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-real-war-on-women</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/thomas-sowell/the-real-war-on-women/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2012 04:06:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Thomas Sowell]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gender]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pay gap]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Women]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=134434</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What the "gender pay gap" canard distracts from. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/wow.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-134435" title="wow" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/wow.gif" alt="" width="375" height="248" /></a>Among the people who are disappointed with President Obama, none has more reason to be disappointed than those who thought he was going to be &#8220;a uniter, rather than a divider&#8221; and that he would &#8220;bring us all together.&#8221;</p>
<p>It was a noble hope, but one with no factual foundation. Barack Obama had been a divider all his adult life, especially as a community organizer, and he had repeatedly sought out and allied himself with other dividers, the most blatant of whom was the man whose church he attend for 20 years, Jeremiah Wright.</p>
<p>Now, with his presidency on the line and the polls looking dicey, President Obama&#8217;s re-election campaign has become more openly divisive than ever.</p>
<p>He has embraced the strident &#8220;Occupy Wall Street&#8221; movement, with its ridiculous claim of representing the 99 percent against the 1 percent. Obama&#8217;s Department of Justice has been spreading the hysteria that states requiring photo identification for voting are trying to keep minorities from voting, and using the prevention of voter fraud as a pretext.</p>
<p>But anyone who doubts the existence of voter fraud should read John Fund&#8217;s book &#8220;Stealing Elections&#8221; or J. Christian Adams&#8217;s book, &#8220;Injustice,&#8221; which deals specifically with the Obama Justice Department&#8217;s overlooking voter fraud when those involved are black Democrats.</p>
<p>Not content with dividing classes and races, the Obama campaign is now seeking to divide the sexes by declaring that women are being paid less than men, as part of a &#8220;war on women&#8221; conducted by villains, from whom Obama and company will protect the women — and, not incidentally, expect to receive their votes this November.</p>
<p>The old — and repeatedly discredited — game of citing women&#8217;s incomes as some percentage of men&#8217;s incomes is being played once again, as part of the &#8220;war on women&#8221; theme.</p>
<p>Since women average fewer hours of work per year, and fewer years of consecutive full-time employment than men, among other differences, comparisons of male and female annual earnings are comparisons of apples and oranges, as various female economists have pointed out.</p>
<p>Read Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Hudson Institute or Professor Claudia Goldin of Harvard, for example.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/thomas-sowell/the-real-war-on-women/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Smoke and Mirrors on the Campaign Trail</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/yedidya-atlas/smoke-and-mirrors-on-the-campaign-trail/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=smoke-and-mirrors-on-the-campaign-trail</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/yedidya-atlas/smoke-and-mirrors-on-the-campaign-trail/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 04:06:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Yedidya Atlas]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election 2012]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mitt romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Women]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=132803</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What Romney must do to break through the fog. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/obama-romney-split.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-132846" title="obama-romney-split" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/obama-romney-split.gif" alt="" width="375" height="246" /></a>In his April 18<sup>th</sup> column for RealClearPolitics, Senior Elections Analyst Sean Trende notes that the upcoming presidential elections between the incumbent, Democratic President Barack Obama, and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, will be, as usual, “a referendum on the party in power.” That is, President Obama will be running, whether he wants to or not (and he clearly doesn’t), on his performance record.</p>
<p>Considering Mr. Obama’s poor presidential performance, particularly in the key area of the economy, he will have a difficult time selling his self-trumped-up success in turning around the economy since the great crash in September 2008 – the very crash that leveraged him into the White House (“everything is Bush’s fault”) – no matter what is written on his cue cards.</p>
<p>Without a doubt, Team Obama agrees, and their strategy is a combination of Mr. Obama running as if he isn’t the incumbent (“everything is always someone else’s fault” – President Bush, Congress, the Republican majority in the House, anybody and everybody who isn’t Barack Obama), and at the same time, trying to impugn the good name and record of his Republican challenger, Mr. Romney, so the voters will prefer Mr. Obama by comparison.</p>
<p>This explains the Bain Capital ads and other similar attacks. But, like everything else Team Obama has tried in the last two months, this strategy seems to have backfired. Even Obama supporter Newark Mayor Cory Booker, speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press” this past Sunday, said, “I have to just say from a very personal level, I&#8217;m not about to sit here and indict private equity. To me, it’s just, we&#8217;re getting to a ridiculous point in America. Especially,” declared Mayor Booker, a Democrat, “that I know I live in a state where pension funds, unions and other people invest in companies like Bain Capital. If you look at the totality of Bain Capital&#8217;s record, they&#8217;ve done a lot to support businesses, to grow businesses.”</p>
<p>Pronouncing “this kind of stuff” to be “nauseating to me…[and] to the American public,” Mayor Booker put it succinctly. “It undermines…what this country should be focused on. It’s a distraction from the real issues.”</p>
<p>Of course, what the Newark mayor doesn’t realize is that creating a “distraction from the real issues” is what it is all about. Such ad campaigns are not by accident. Team Obama is deliberately trying every trick in their campaign book to divert attention from the president’s record in office by throwing irrelevant matters in the face of the electorate – who they condescendingly believe are too stupid to realize what they are doing – and squeak first past the finish line come November.</p>
<p>It is the task of Mr. Romney and his campaign team to keep the focus of the public on the real issues. To hammer away at Mr. Obama’s failures, and in essence, to force the mainstream media to do their job and not be so easily sidetracked by smoke and mirrors. Mr. Romney has to repeat and repeat, again and again, his own clear vision for handling the critical issues facing the American people. By doing so, it will not only push the media to focus accordingly, it will also force Team Obama to have to try and explain away the incumbent’s flip-flops, outright lies, and his administration’s failed domestic and foreign policies.</p>
<p>Since the primary concern of all Americans is the economy, it should be noted that Mr. Obama has, as one pundit put it, “been missing in action with respect to confronting the skyrocketing national debt.” He appointed a bipartisan commission to propose solutions to the looming budgetary crisis, and then summarily ignored its recommendations. Even in his first two years in office, when his own party dominated both houses of Congress, he failed to get Congree to pass a budget, and now, although the Republicans control the House, Mr. Obama’s proposed budget was still rejected 0 to 99 by the Senate, even with its Democratic majority.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/yedidya-atlas/smoke-and-mirrors-on-the-campaign-trail/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Democrats&#8217; War on Women</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/the-democrats-war-on-women/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-democrats-war-on-women</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/the-democrats-war-on-women/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2012 04:50:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arnold Ahlert]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Great Society]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[poverty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sexual revolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War on Women]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=128530</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How the Left confines women and children in poverty. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Picture-6.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-128576" title="Picture-6" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Picture-6.gif" alt="" width="375" height="252" /></a>The so-called Republican &#8220;war on women&#8221; currently being trumpeted by Democrats (with ample help from an ever-accommodating media) has exposed the absurd depths of the leftist entitlement mentality and its disdain for the concept of religious freedom. It was highlighted by the testimony of Sandra Fluke, who contended that her birth control should be <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/here-is-the-mind-numbing-audio-of-a-college-student-telling-congress-to-pay-for-her-birth-control/">underwritten</a> by others regardless of their religious convictions. Yet if war is defined as something that does <em>genuine</em> damage to the interests of women, it is Democrats, via the sexual revolution and its all-out attack on traditional values, who have waged a war against women for decades. What has the Democratic war on women brought us?</p>
<p>First and foremost, it has brought us the wholesale destruction of the nuclear family, and the resultant poverty and crime that attends it. Currently <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304724404577299424128682402.html">41 percent</a> of children are born to single mothers, most of whom are low-income women in their early and mid-20s. In the black American community, that percentage <a href="http://www.blackamericaweb.com/?q=articles/news/the_state_of_black_america_news/23335">soars</a> to a staggering 72 percent. Male child abandonment is now a rampant aspect of our society. These trends are directly connected to Democrats&#8217; and president Lyndon Johnson&#8217;s &#8220;Great Society,&#8221; and the critical changes they made to the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program (AFDC). A program once reserved for funding once-married women who had lost the primary male supporter of the family was <a href="http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1985-10-02/news/8503070002_1_afdc-welfare-system-families-with-dependent-children/2">expanded</a> to include any household where there was no male family head present.</p>
<p>In 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan <a href="http://partners.nytimes.com/books/98/10/04/specials/moynihan-report.html">predicted</a> where such a change would lead&#8211;when the out-of-wedlock birthrate was 24 percent among black Americans and (4 percent for white Americans). He was excoriated by liberals saying that a &#8220;lack of equal education and opportunity&#8221; were the true root of the problem. 47 years and triple the number of out-of-wedlock births later, liberals are still using the same rationale to defend their position.</p>
<p>It is a weak argument. Education and opportunity, no matter how widely available, requires at least a minimal effort on the part of the individual to attain either. Yet various <a href="http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-07-06.html">studies</a> reveal the utter chaos that informs the lives of an alarming number of children raised by single mothers: they comprise about 70 percent of juvenile murderers, delinquents, teenaged mothers, drug abusers, dropouts, suicides and runaways.</p>
<p>One might think that such a cultural reality would chasten those Democrats dedicated to the idea of &#8220;alternative family lifestyles.&#8221; One would be wrong. A steady stream of cultural sewage &#8220;celebrating&#8221; single motherhood remains the order of the day among Democratic allies in Hollywood. From Candace Bergen&#8217;s <a href="http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/05/09/quayle.cnna/">fatherless child</a> on &#8220;Murphy Brown&#8221; in 1993, to &#8220;Jersey Shore&#8221; and the out-of-wedlock pregnancy of Nicole &#8220;Snooki&#8221; Polizzi in 2012, such lifestyles continue to be promoted.</p>
<p>Yet such promotion ought to be completely anathema to a political party dedicated to class warfare and the growing divide between the rich and the poor. Why? One of the outcomes of the sexual revolution was the &#8220;equalization&#8221; of sexual mores, as in women have been encouraged to adopt the same kind of sexual promiscuity for which men have been routinely excused, or even applauded. Yet reality intrudes: only women can get pregnant and men can, and do, simply abandon their offspring. And while the advent of the pill and the Roe v. Wade ruling 1973 relieved much of the potential calamity of unwanted pregnancy, it also introduced a much greater level of promiscuity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/the-democrats-war-on-women/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>35</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 832/894 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 04:33:07 by W3 Total Cache -->