The Network of enlightened Women (NeW) is excited to announce that the Eighth Annual National Conference will be held on Thursday, June 27, and Friday, June 28, in Washington, DC. The conference will kick off on Thursday evening with a networking event for young professionals. The event will be held from 5:30pm to 7:30pm at the Heritage Foundation.

The National Conference continues on Friday, June 28, from 10am to 4pm at the Heritage Foundation. The keynote address will be given by Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers, author of Who Stole Feminism? and The War Against Boys. The event will include student speakers, an alumni panel, and professional development training.

The Network of enlightened Women (NeW), which began as a book club in 2004 at the University of Virginia, is the nation’s premier organization for conservative college women. With chapters on 20 college campuses, NeW aims to foster the education and leadership of conservative college women, while promoting conservative principles and expanding intellectual diversity on campus.

Register for one or both events by filling out this form Thursday, June 20, 2013. For more information and pictures from the events last year, visit the NeW website. If you have any questions, please contact Sarah Davis at sarah@enlightenedwomen.org. Please feel free to invite friends and colleagues who would be interested in learning more about NeW.

The Pew Research Center has released a study examining media coverage of gay marriage during the period leading up to, during, and after Supreme Court hearings on the issue.

In a period marked by Supreme Court deliberations on the subject, the news media coverage provided a strong sense of momentum towards legalizing same-sex marriage, according to a new study by the Pew Research Center. Stories with more statements supporting same-sex marriage outweighed those with more statements opposing it by a margin of roughly 5-to-1.

In the coverage studied, the central argument among proponents of same-sex marriage was one of civil rights. Arguments against were more varied, but most often voiced the idea that same-sex marriage would hurt society and the institution of traditional marriage.

Almost half (47%) of the nearly 500 stories studied from March 18 (a week prior to the Supreme Court hearings), through May 12, primarily focused on support for the measure, while 9% largely focused on opposition and 44% had a roughly equal mix of both viewpoints or were neutral. In order for a story to be classified as supporting or opposing same sex marriage, statements expressing that position had to outnumber the opposite view by at least 2-to-1. Stories that did not meet that threshold were defined as neutral or mixed.

This study confirms what most of us already suspected: that the surge in public support for gay marriage has been a phenomenon largely driven by the media. There’s little doubt that gay marriage is in vogue – 70% of young adults (ages 18 to 29) are in favor. As the group most engaged with new media trends and thus most susceptible to media bias, this demographic’s overwhelming support is a strong indicator of media’s seminal role in shaping gay marriage opinions.

Of course, when it comes to reporting bias, the perpetual question is whether the media is a molder or reflector of public attitudes. On this matter, though, it seems pretty clear. Reporting bias in the Pew study was 47% in favor to 9% opposed; that study registers present public support as 51% in favor to 42% opposed. Media favoritism for gay marriage far outstrips that of the public at large.

The most common media argument – that this issue is one of civil rights – merits a comparison of the gay marriage movement with that of black civil rights. As I see it, despite superficial similarities, the comparison breaks down once you get to the fundamental nature of the two movements. The black civil rights movement, at its core, was a cause championed primarily on a grassroots level. Massive demonstrations, strikes, and sit-ins precipitated change that eventually spread to journalism and government. Gay marriage, on the other hand, has not seen collective action on this scale. In fact, the push for gay marriage originated at the top and trickled down, whereas black civil rights was more bottom-up. This is especially evident when you delve into economic trends. Individuals with family incomes over $75,000 support gay marriage, whereas those who earn less are split about evenly.

This probably all boils down to the high socioeconomic status enjoyed by many gays compared to other minority groups. With this wealth and influence, it made sense for them to utilize media as the primary tool for advancing their agenda instead of orchestrating large-scale demonstrations. Black Americans in the ‘50s and ’60s, on the other hand, lacked these resources, so their only option was massive collective action. With Supreme Court decisions on DOMA and California’s Prop. 8 due any day now, it will be interesting to see whether media and public attitudes affect the Court’s judgments.

After years of criticism, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton has submitted his resignation.

John Morton, the director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, will leave his post at the end of July to take a position at a private company, ICE's office of public affairs said Monday.

Appointed by President Barack Obama in May 2009, he is the third and longest serving director in the agency's history, according to ICE.

Just four months ago, Morton oversaw the release of thousands of illegal immigrants onto the streets, hundreds of which have violent criminal records.

Morton's resignation in the middle of the illegal immigration debate on Capitol Hill is sure to cause a few headaches.

According to the Associated Press, Holly Paz has told congressional investigators that all these pesky charges about IRS targeting are, well, just the result of some unfortunate misunderstandings:

Paz described an agency in which IRS supervisors in Washington worked closely with agents in the field but didn't fully understand what those agents were doing. Paz said agents in Cincinnati openly talked about handling "tea party" cases, but she thought the term was merely shorthand for all applications from groups that were politically active -- conservative and liberal.

. . .

Paz said an IRS supervisor in Cincinnati had commonly referred to the applications as "tea party" cases. But, Paz said, she thought that was simply shorthand for any application that included political activity.

 "Since the first case that came up to Washington happened to have that name, it appeared to me that's why they were calling it that as a shorthand," Paz told congressional investigators.

 Paz said she didn't think the agents in Cincinnati were politically motivated.

 "My impression, based on, you know, this instance and other instances in the office is that, because they are so apolitical, they are not as sensitive as we would like them to be as to how things might appear," Paz said.

Yeeeah, that's the ticket!

Seriously, this excuse-making is just cringeworthy. If Ms. Paz expects anyone to take her seriously, she really needs to account for unfortunate facts like some of those laid out in USA Today this morning, which effectively rebut her claims:

Elizabeth Hofacre, the agency's emerging issues coordinator in Cincinnati when the targeting began, has told investigators that she kicked out any progressive groups that other agents tried to put in with the Tea Party cases. She said she understood the term to mean conservative or Republican groups. "I was tasked to do Tea Parties, and I wasn't — I wasn't equipped or set up to do anything else."

A USA TODAY analysis of IRS data shows that dozens of liberal groups received tax-exempt approval in the 27 months that Tea Party groups sat in limbo, even though the liberal groups were engaging in similar kids of activity. Groups applying for the exemption are supposed to be primarily focusing on social welfare, not political activity.

If "Tea Party" was just shorthand for "politically sensitive," (1)Why was Elizabeth Hofacre tasked with just "Tea Party" cases, rather than "politically sensitive" ones? and (2) If confusion about how to process politically sensitive cases was genuine, how did it happen that the "apolitical" workers were somehow able to process only lefty applications, and (3) how was it that Democrats couldn't find a single liberal group that had been harassed like conservatives had?

In a word: Cringeworthy. Who can take anything these people say seriously?

It never stops. CBS News is at it again. This time, they've compared radical Islamic men running for the Iranian presidency to....the Tea Party.


Ironically, CBS News anchor Scott Pelley essentially said over the weekend that his outlet needed to be objective in order to reach every audience.

DEADLINE: So for you, other outlets especially the cable news networks do center on just one segment of the political spectrum in their reporting?
PELLEY: Certainly. It’s no surprise. Fox is associated with the right and MSNBC is associated with the left and they’ve done that because it is a business model. It’s a strategy. They’ve decided to bite off one small part of the viewership and be happy with that 200,000 viewers, 300,000 viewers that they have. But when you are talking to 7 million viewers across the country, man you have got to represent everybody’s views and have got to give them the impression that you are being as honest as you know how to be.

As a side note, Fox News has millions of viewers not simply thousands as Pelley suggests. Here is Sarah Palin on Fox News' Fox and Friends (which rakes in more than 1 million viewer per day) responding to CBS' comparison.

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin made her return to Fox News as a contributor Monday morning. She helped the Fox and Friends crew with co-hosting duties and interviewed Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who she campaigned for last year.

Palin defended Cruz and Senator Rand Paul earlier this year when Senator John McCain called them "whacko birds."

As scandalpalooza continues to unfold inside the Beltway, a new CNN/ORC International poll shows President Obama's approval rating has dropped by eight percent over the past month.

President Barack Obama's approval rating dropped eight percentage points over the past month, to 45%, the president's lowest rating in more than a year and a half, according to a new national poll.

The CNN/ORC International survey released Monday morning comes as the White House has been reacting to controversies over a massive U.S. government surveillance program; the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of tea party and other conservative groups who applied for tax-exempt status; the administration's handling of last September's attack in Benghazi that left the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans dead; and the Justice Department's secret collection of journalists' phone records as part of a government investigation into classified leaks.

The poll indicates that for the first time in Obama’s presidency, half of the public says they don't believe he is honest and trustworthy. And Americans are split on the controversial National Security Agency anti-terrorism program to record metadata on U.S. phone calls, but they support the NSA program that targets records of Internet usage by people in other countries. That doesn't mean they necessarily like what is going on: Just over six in 10 believe that government is so large and powerful that it threatens the rights and freedoms of ordinary Americans.

The number of Americans who think he is honest has dropped nine points over the past month, to 49%. Fifty-seven percent of those questioned say they disagree with the president's views on the size and power of the federal government, and 53% say he cannot manage the government effectively. Fifty-two percent say the president is a strong and decisive leader. That's still a majority, but it's down six points from last month.

The most important and interesting numbers come from Obama's base and loyal voters.

The president's approval rating stands at 45%, down from 53% in mid-May. And 54% say they disapprove of how Obama's handling his job, up nine points from last month. It's the first time in CNN polling since November 2011 that a majority of Americans have had a negative view of the president.

"The drop in Obama's support is fueled by a dramatic 17-point decline over the past month among people under 30, who, along with black Americans, had been the most loyal part of the Obama coalition," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

The president also dropped 10 points among independent voters, from 47% last month to 37% now, with Obama's disapproval among independents jumping 12 points to 61%.

It doesn't help that President Obama has refused to address multiple scandals directly. He's been off at fundraisers and deputies have been sent on the Sunday talk shows to defend the administration rather than Obama's chief of staff. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has been bumbling through press conferences for weeks now and has repeatedly given the non-answer of "we cannot common on an ongoing investigation" for nearly every question asked.

As a reminder, this is what we are dealing with at the moment.

1. NSA scandal, secret monitoring of American citizens
2. IRS scandal, targeting of conservatives
3. The Department of Justice secretly monitoring hundreds of reporters and editors
4. The Department of Justice and Attorney General Eric Holder naming Fox News correspondent James Rosen as a criminal co-conspirator for practicing journalism and then lying about it under oath
5. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius extorting money from companies she regulates to pay for ObamaCare
6. Benghazi

How many answers do we have surrounding any of them? Hardly any, which explains the feeling among many that the Obama administration is dishonest.

Washington is bickering over whether the Cornyn amendment to the Gang of Eight framework is a deal-breaking and onerous "poison pill," or a totally inadequate "Trojan horse."  The New York Times published a piece pondering that exact question on Friday.  It quoted Chuck Schumer panning the plan as a "nonstarter" and "deal-killer," without specifying a single policy flaw.  How does any of this go "too far"?  One Republican Senator is having none of this entire show.  Alabama's Jeff Sessions released a blistering statement Sunday morning preemptively rejecting any "cosmetic fixes" to the legislation (hyperlinks and emphasis his):

When the Gang of Eight first announced their immigration bill they declared it was the toughest enforcement plan in history. They declared enforcement would come before legalization. And they declared that anyone who suggested otherwise didn’t know what they were talking about. Now the bill has been reviewed and there can be no dispute: it weakens current law, undermines future enforcement and puts amnesty—not enforcement—first. So new promises of amendment ‘fixes’ to save the bill should be viewed with great skepticism: every time, on every issue, the promises have not matched with reality. They promised back taxes—but the requirement isn’t there; they promised tight restrictions on welfare benefits—but state and local benefits, as well as tax credits, will be available immediately and federal welfare access is granted to millions of illegal immigrants starting in five years; they promised to protect workers—but this bill would devastate workers by tripling the number of legal immigrants over the next decade and doubling the number of guest workers.

No small cosmetic fix can save this bill, with so many provisions clearly authored by special interests whose chief desires are lower wages and amnesty—rather than a lawful, rational system of immigration. As the ICE officers’ association warned: ‘instead of cracking down on the Administration’s abuse of power, S. 744 places unprecedented new restrictions on interior enforcement—making the current situation much worse and much more hazardous. It is as if S. 744 were explicitly written to handcuff law enforcement officials—binding their hands while giving virtually unchecked authority to executive branch officials to prevent future removals, including removals of criminal aliens.’ And as the USCIS adjudications officers warned: ‘the legislation was written with special interests—producing a bill that makes the current system worse, not better. S. 744 will damage public safety and national security and should be opposed by lawmakers.’ It’s time for the Gang of Eight to start being straight with the American public.”

Remember, top Democrats have stated on the record that they'll veto any changes to the current bill that exceed "tweaks."  We already know that any move toward an 'enforcement first' paradigm doesn't qualify.  Whether Cornyn's plan would really short-circuit the process remains to be seen; Sessions views the discussion as misdirection. His office also blasted out a video clip of the Senate Judiciary Committee defeating Sessions' amendment that would have blocked newly-legalized immigrants from receiving a generous tax subsidy during their provisional status.  All ten committee Democrats opposed the measure, while Republicans -- Lindsey Graham included -- unanimously voted aye.  This 10-8 party line vote took place nearly a month ago, but Sessions believes it's an enduring example of 'gang' rhetoric not aligning with reality:

Chris Crane, president of the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, has also warned that the proposed bill does not sufficiently address interior enforcement:

It appears that the individuals and organizations involved in crafting the Gang of Eight legislation purposely ignored interior enforcement with the intent of continuing the practices which have led to the nation’s current immigration problems. The proof of this is the bill itself, S.744, the Gang of Eight ’ s immigration legislation. With visa overstays accounting for an estimated 40% of the 11 million illegal aliens currently in the United States (4.5 million), S. 744 speaks only of significant increases to border enforcement, not interior enforcement. Clearly, 4.5 million visa overstays entered the United States legally, and did not illegally cross our nation’s borders. This is a problem that cannot be stopped by the United States Border Patrol. Investments in border security will never address this problem, which accounts for almost half of all illegal aliens currently in the United States . Additionally, investments on the border will do nothing to ensure that everyone who illegally crosses the border into the United States is apprehended and removed. That again is ICE’s interior enforcement mission.

Part of the interior security problem will supposedly be resolved by the new bill's revamped visa entry-exit system.  Sounds good, but similar laws have been on the books for the years and haven't been properly enforced by the executive branch.  If "this time is different," I'd love to know how and why.  Which brings us, once again, to Marco Rubio.  Contra Sessions, Rubio thinks most of the bill is "in perfect shape."  Interesting.  His vocal support for the Cornyn amendment reportedly prompted a private slap-down from fellow 'gang' members, which then leaked to the media.  Whether those machinations are a piece of elaborate kabuki, or evidence of genuine trouble in paradise, is unclear at the moment.  There's some evidence that Rubio may be edging away from a full embrace of Cornyn's proposal -- namely, his co-authorship of a new border enforcement amendment with Tom Coburn.  Is that what this will be, or will Rubio stand firmly behind Cornyn? 

Over the weekend in the gun control Capitol of the country, 46 people were shot in Chicago. More from the Chicago Tribune:

“Our son is dead! Oh Jesus!” the 57-year-old screamed, referring to her other son, Cortez, who was killed earlier that morning on Chicago’s West Side. “Oh my God! Oh my God! We were just talking.”

At least 33 people were shot — six of them fatally — Saturday afternoon through Father's Day Sunday, stretching from 94th Street and Loomis Avenue on the South Side up to about North Avenue and North Pulaski Road on the Northwest Side, according to authorities. The youngest person who was killed during one of the bloodiest weekends in Chicago this year was 16.

Shootings from Friday afternoon into Saturday left another 13 people shot, 1 fatally. The combined tally resulted in 46 people shot, and seven killed this weekend. Last year at about the same time, there were 53 people shot, nine fatally in one weekend.

The Chicago Police Department is attempting to spin the situation by citing that murder numbers are down in 2013, but it is important to point out murder rates "being down" is in comparison to 532 murders in 2012 and 425 in 2011.

This is just too good. The White House tweeted a photo of President Obama with a scary looking assault water gun on Father's Day.

Hope all the dads out there have a great Father's Day weekend: http://t.co/JFD34sfklp #QualityTime pic.twitter.com/2UvcSk1VYk

— The White House (@whitehouse) June 15, 2013

Meanwhile, the kid who wore an NRA t-shirt to school is facing jail time.

Suspended and arrested after refusing to change his NRA shirt. Today, 14-year-old Jared Marcum appeared before a judge and was officially charged with obstructing an officer.

A $500 fine and up to a year in jail, that's the penalty that Jared could face, now that a judge has allowed the prosecution to move forward with it's obstructing an officer charge against him.

"Me, I'm more of a fighter and so is Jared and eventually we're going to get through this," Jared's father Allen Lardieri said.  "I don't think it should have ever gotten this far."

The Logan County Police Department initially claimed that the at-the-time 8th grade Logan Middle School student was arrested for disturbing the education process, obstructing an officer and Lardieri says that officers even went as far as threatening to charge Jared with making terroristic threats.

"In my view of the facts, Jared didn't do anything wrong," Ben White, Jared's attorney said.  "I think officer Adkins could have done something differently."