IN HONOR OF THOSE WHO HAVE DIED PRESERVING FREEDOM

I have spoken here of the possible “mishandling” of the Koran by a few soldiers.  Meanwhile, I have observed the mishandling of something more important and meaningful.  I am referring to the mishandling of the memory of American service men and women.  

Each year that America is at war, around Memorial Day, various individuals, groups and organizations print the list of those soldiers who have died in service to their country.  There appear to be two reasons for doing so.  The first and only defensible reason for printing such lists is to honor the service of those who have died defending America against our enemies.

More and more frequently, however, those opposed to war print such lists in order to divide America and weaken its resolve.  Somehow, the antiwar left believes that by showing the human cost of war America will give up its fight against evil.  Gary Trudeau is the latest leftist to take this approach in his Sunday Doonesbury “comic” strip (Minneapolis StarTribune, May 29, 2005). 

Being opposed to the war on terror demonstrates either ignorance or a wish that America be destroyed by its enemies.  Everyone has a right to his or her beliefs, even if they are wrong.  But, the use of the names of dead American soldiers to make a leftist political statement is indefensible.  

On this Memorial Day, I hope that each of us will be cognizant of the purpose behind the printing of lists of the dead.  When lists are printed out of respect and honor, I hope that we all will bow our heads and send our love and caring to the families of those who have served with valor.  I hope that we will all remember that in order to preserve our nation and our lives we must be willing to fight. 

When the lists are printed by those trying to destroy America, I hope that we all will raise our heads in defiance and demand a stop to the “mishandling” of the memory of our American dead. 

ON THIS MEMORIAL DAY MAY WE HONOR THE SPIRIT OF THE AMERICAN SOLDIER AND COMMIT TO DEFEND AMERICA AGAINST EVIL

Apparently, members of a Muslim sect blew up a Muslim shrine in Islamabad, Pakistan.  Twenty people were killed and 150 injured (Minneapolis StarTribune, May 28, 2005).  In that country, extremists within the Shiite and Sunni Muslims has led to the killing hundreds over the years, most of them Muslims.  News of this most recent killing of Muslims by Muslims appeared on page A21 of the StarTribune.

The StarTribune also reported on May 28 that thousands rallied against the United States for alleged desecration of the Koran.  During this most recent mass tantrum, Muslims burned replicas of the U.S. Constitution.  One of the largest protests took place in Islamabad where only hours before the Muslim shrine mentioned above was blown up.  News of these anti-American rallies appeared on page A6 of the newspaper, filling most of the page.

Despite the fact that the number of incidents of “mishandling” of the Koran was set at five or less, the press continues to lead with its anti-military agenda.  Apologies are demanded.  Focus is on the belief that mishandling of the Koran would never have happened if President Bush had not been reelected to office.  Of course, the message from the press is that America is to blame. 

All of this over five incidents surrounding the Koran?  The incidents DO provide a good excuse for our internal and external enemies to bash America.  Of course there has been no significant mention in the elite media of the fact that it was Americans who gave Islamic prisoners copies of the Koran in the first place.  Nor has there been mention of the fact that the military has gone out of its way to ensure that Islamic prisoners can practice the rituals of their religion multiple times each day.  Rather than honor the military for being sensitive to the spiritual views of Muslims, the military is castigated for a few incidents of mishandling of the Koran.  And further, there is no mention of the fact that the people being incarcerated are really bad guys who, before being arrested, were trying to kill Americans.

Nor is there any significant mention in the press regarding the fact that America has liberated millions of Muslims around the world.  They seem to forget the war in Bosnia.  Despite the fact that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq continue to rage there is no focus on the millions of people being freed from tyranny.  Feminists never speak about how many women are now able to work and attend and teach school in Afghanistan.  Muslim women themselves seem oblivious to the impact America has made on their lives.  This is apparent when it is seen that many of those protesting about the Koran incidents were women still wearing conservative dress. 

It is impossible to calculate how many Korans have been destroyed in the bombings by Muslims of mosques and other places of spiritual importance to Muslims.  I would expect that the figure would be considerably more than five.  The number of Muslims killed by Muslims must be phenomenal.  We don’t hear about that.  We hear about mishandling of a book.

Apparently, George Lucas sees the United States as the evil empire.  According to James P. Pinkerton in an article for Newsday (May 23, 2005), in the latest Star Wars movie “Lucas has outed himself, ideologically: He compares George W. Bush to Darth Vader. In a line that the critics are raving about, Anakin/Vader says, ‘If you're not with me, you're my enemy.’ That's a clear play on President Bush's famous line from his speech to Congress on Sept. 20, 2001: ‘Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.’ So there you have it: In Lucas' imagination, America is the evil empire.

“Yet, in addition to Bush-bashing, Lucas went even further. He confides to reporters that none other than President Richard Nixon inspired him to create the original "Star Wars" in the '70s. Nixon, of course, is the all-time Great Satan of liberal political demonology”. And here I thought that the Soviet Union was the evil empire.  According to Lucas, it was US.

Pinkerton noted in his commentary that “Lucas went on to draw parallels between the Vietnam War then and the Iraq war now.”  Pinkerton further noted that it is “No wonder so many critics love the new movie. Writing for Slate.com, David Edelstein praises the "anti-fascist politics" of ‘Sith.’ And who's the fascist? Well, that would be the president. Playing on the name of the film's arch fiend, Darth Sidious, Edelstein lauds Lucas for taking a ‘palpable swipe at our own Darth Dubyous.’ The allegorical politics of ‘Sith’ are so unmistakable that the headline in the Hollywood Reporter reads, ‘Lucas film strikes back at Bush.’’  Pinkerton correctly states that  “This attitude prevails in Hollywood.  Actors, directors, and producers make millions or billions of dollars in America.  Then they bash America…the hand that feeds them.”

If Mr. Lucas believes that President Bush is the real life Darth Vader, he is VERY confused.  His view of the world is the exact opposite of reality…almost like viewing the negative of a film.  But if he does perceive America to be the “dark side” maybe he would be happier living with those that he sees as “good”.  I am sure he would be welcomed by the islamofascists living in the Middle East and elsewhere on the “light side”.  I have no doubt that they would support his lifestyle and maybe even join him for lobster and a movie on the coast.

Minnesota passed what is called the personal protection law.  It has also been called the “conceal and carry” law.  Because it was attached to another bill at the time of its passing in 2003, the law was determined to be “unconstitutional” by a Minnesota judge.  It has now been passed again, by a wide margin, in both the State Senate and the State House of Representatives.  The Governor is expected to sign.  Even after its second passage, ongoing lawsuits are expected.

So what is the problem?  The extreme left will ALWAYS use the courts to create law.  This is especially true when the majority of voters is for or against a particular initiative.  The votes of the majority can always be trumped by the act of one activist judge.  In this case, the majority supported the enactment of the law.  The law did not pass muster with the left.  The constitutionality of the law itself could not be challenged, so an activist judge ruled the law unconstitutional based on HOW the law was enacted.  This tack was taken despite the fact that hundreds of laws have been enacted in Minnesota as attachments to other bills.

The real question here is exactly WHY the personal protection law is perceived as so reprehensible by the left.  After all, the Constitution is exceptionally clear on the issue.  Amendment II states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  There can be no question about the constitutionality of any law that simply reaffirms what is already a constitutional right.  Well, apparently, the Constitution can be an unnecessary encumbrance for the left when the founding document doesn’t support leftist goals.

The left views guns as the enemy.  Despite the fact that hundreds of people are killed daily, across the country, by people who are carrying a gun illegally, new articles NEVER begin with “Victim killed by man carrying a gun illegally.  The shooter had no permit to carry a gun.  He did not go through extensive gun training.  He did not pass a test on weapons safety and firing.  He did not obtain a license to carry a weapon.  The perpetrator simply bought a gun (or stole it) and put it in his waist band and pulled it out when he wanted to kill the victim.” 

However, the one time in Minnesota that a person who was legally carrying a gun killed someone, the newspaper article and most television and radio coverage lead with the fact that the perpetrator had a gun permit. 

So, why does the left view the legal carrying of a gun as a bad thing while it does not view the illegal carrying of gun as bad?   I can only guess since the logic of the left is so psychotic that it is nonexistent.  It might be about “classism” and/or racism. 

I know it sounds strange.  But here is the possible “logic”.  The left can never do anything overt that would negatively impact the poor or minorities (other than enforce their dependence upon the government for their wellbeing in order to guarantee their servitude and, thus, their loyalty).  Among those who are shooting people with illegal weapons are people of color and/or people of lower income.  People who are obtaining permits legally tend to be working class or middle class men and women who want to protect themselves.  The people they are trying to protect themselves against are the people who are carrying illegally.  If the law-abiding among us arm ourselves, then we are somehow discriminating against the rights of the poor and the rights of those of color. 

Of course the logic falls apart when we consider that no one has the  “right” to kill the rest of us.  But logic has never stood in the way of the left.

If that logic makes no sense, here is another attempt to decipher the thinking of the left.  This one is even more sinister.

The left clearly wants big government.  It wants to make the masses dependent upon that government.  It wants collectivism as opposed to individualism.  Of course, all of that is diametrically opposed to what America stands for.  If the left gets its way, government will have to quash those who oppose government restriction of personal freedom.  While the left is slowly taking away our individual freedoms piece by piece (e.g., smoking bans, helmet laws, seat belt laws, attempted taxation of fast food), the process has not yet hit the radar screen of the average person.  Once the reality hits, there will be an uprising.  If the “masses” are armed, it will be harder for the leftist government to control us.  Therefore, it is in their interest to get rid of all weapons except for those that they control.

Okay, so that one sounds like the ravings of a paranoid schizophrenic.  Except…that is what happened in Nazi Germany which was ruled by the National Socialist Party.

Are those on the left protecting perpetrators against those of us who are trying to defend ourselves because some of the perpetrators are poor or people of color?  Or are they preparing for the day when they will have to protect themselves against the “masses”?

Obviously, this is a question that only the left can answer.  In the meantime, it is in our best interest to prevent the left from taking even more control of America.  That is the only way we will be able to uphold the Constitution and guarantee our individual freedoms.

Newsweek did a very bad thing when it published an item without a second source regarding alleged misuse of the Koran at Guantanamo.  Many deaths have resulted and many more will.  Dennis Prager has gone so far as to say that "Newsweek is directly responsible for the deaths of innocents and for damaging America." (www.dennisprager.com)  The left denies that the item was politically motivated and seem to be chagrined that the story might not be true (see The Nation, June 6, 2005 issue).  We may never know the truth.  In actuality, it doesn’t matter.  The article did its damage.  Especially during wartime, the news media needs to be careful about what it prints.  This means that facts MUST be confirmed.  This is not censorship.  It is good journalism.

Having said that, I believe that we are missing the mark.  Newsweek handed ammunition to the terrorists in Afghanistan and in the rest of the world.  The magazine, however, did not directly kill anyone.  We are not focusing our attention on the REAL enemy in this situation. 

In an editorial written for the New York Times (Minneapolis StarTribune, May 20, 2005) David Brooks pointed out that even the administration is “bending over backward to show sensitivity to the Afghans who just went on a murderous rampage.  Talk about the bigotry of low expectations”.

Brooks went on to write that “maybe we should all focus on what's important. Newsweek's little item was seized and exploited by America's enemies in a way that was characteristically cynical, delusional and fascistic.  The people who seized upon this item, like the radical clerics in Afghanistan, are cynical in the way they manipulate episodes like this to whip up hatred and so magnify their own standing.  At the same time, they believe everything that could be alleged about America -- and more. They've spent so many years inhabiting a delusional mental landscape filled with conspiracy theories and paranoia that you could drill deep into their minds without ever touching reality”.

As asserted by Brooks, the point is this:  “The rioters are the real enemy, not Newsweek and not the American soldiers serving as prison guards”.

Brooks pounded home his viewpoint by quoting a section from a sermon delivered by Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris, which ran last weekend on the Palestinian Authority's official TV station:

‘The day will come when we will rule America. The day will come when we will rule Britain and the entire world -- except for the Jews. The Jews will not enjoy a life of tranquility under our rule because they are treacherous by nature, as they have been throughout history. The day will come when everything will be relieved of the Jews -- even the stones and trees which were harmed by them. Listen to the Prophet Muhammad, who tells you about the evil end that awaits Jews. The stones and trees will want the Muslims to finish off every Jew.’

This is the mindset of the enemy: hatred for Americans and Jewish people.  Ever time a media outlet publishes a story that can be used to inflame Muslims, the extremists will take advantage of that story to incite.  Terrorists will be created with every such occurrence.  Newsweek may have underestimated the threat or it may have intentionally used the story to undermine our administration.  It doesn’t matter.  We cannot ignore the fact that it was terrorists who have killed and who will continue to kill anyone with whom they disagree. 

As Brooks stated, “These are…the real enemy. Let's keep our eye on the ball.”

Most of the leftist print media (including the Los Angeles Times and the Minneapolis StarTribune) are coming to the aid of Newsweek.  This support comes even after the magazine’s editor publicly retracted the story about supposed Koran abuse that caused uproar in the Muslim world.  In the process, the leftist media is condemning the Bush Administration.  That comes as no surprise. The StarTribune (May 18, 2005) said that Newsweek “shouldn’t have” taken responsibility for the rioting in Afghanistan that killed at least seventeen people.  According to the newspaper, the violence would have happened anyway because the insurgency was trying to prevent reconciliation in the country.  The StarTribune went on to suggest that the only real problem with the Newsweek article was that the editors didn’t require a second source.  According to the paper, “It would have been prudent, and more responsible, for Newsweek to have confirmed the story with a second source; the failure gave the White House the opening it has now seized to such good effect”. 

As was the case when Dan Rather lied in order to bring down President Bush, the press always comes to the aid of the press.  This is the case today regarding Newsweek.  Not only do they pull out all the stops to defend themselves, they try at the same time to further weaken the administration and therefore the nation.  One “tried and true” way of doing this is to refer back to WMD every time a media source tells a lie or runs with a story that is at best unfounded.  For example, the StarTribune wrote “Besides, the White House itself committed much more egregious errors in the way it so casually used dubious intelligence to make a case for going to war in Iraq”.

I have written before about the maze of confusion that is created when people on the left choose to create relativistic realities.  Here is yet another example.  The StarTribune acknowledges that Newsweek did not gain confirmation of its story through a second source.  The story gave terrorists a weapon to use against America and resulted in death for many and in danger or death for many more in the future.  The goal of the article was clearly to undermine the Bush Administration, our war on terror, and as a result, our country.

By contrast, President Bush joined with leaders of other nations.  The leaders of the coalition relied on information concerning weapons of mass destruction from a wide range of intelligence operations.  They did not rely simply on a second source; they relied on multiple sources.  At the time, every intelligence agency believed that Iraq held major weapons of destruction.  Saddam did nothing to dispel that belief.  There is NO comparison between the WMD issue and the use of single source information to write stories that will result in the weakening of America at war and in the deaths of many now and in the future.

The same people who worked as interns and student editors at university newspapers during the last years of the Vietnam War are now the editors of the leftist press.  They did everything possible during the Vietnam War to destroy American credibility and resolve.  They succeeded, and thousands were killed as a result.  They are doing it again.  Their distaste for standing up to evil and for those who are trying to lead us in that effort outweighs anything else.  Their belief that America is always wrong colors all that they write. 

Newsweek did something that was very wrong.  The editor has retracted the article.  He needs to do more.  He needs to do everything possible to make sure that the Muslim world understands that the story was not based in fact.  And he needs to fire all involved at the magazine.  That is the least he can do for the people killed as a result of their actions.

 The news media decides what we see, what we hear, and to some extent, what we come to believe.  Until very recently, the “mainstream” media have controlled the flow of information.  We all know that information is power.  Public broadcasting (in the form of PBS and NPR) has controlled what we see and hear with funds provided by…of all people…us!

The media can bias new distribution in several ways:

• By selecting what news stories to run
• By selecting what content to include in a chosen story
• By selecting the tone and inflection employed in the telling or writing of the story

In effect, the control held by the media falls into three simple categories:  Whether (to tell a story), What (to include in the story),and How (to tell the story). 

That is why I am bemused by the recent article by Jonathan Chait for the Los Angeles Times (Minneapolis StarTribune, 5/11/05) condemning the supposed “takeover by Republicans of public broadcasting.  And Mr. Chait actually wrote this with a straight face?

Mr. Chait writes:  “Republican hacks are slowly strangling National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System. And the liberals who are complaining about it have nobody to blame but themselves.  Well, OK, maybe not ‘nobody’.  Surely some of the blame lies with the Republican hacks. Let's begin with them, and get to the liberals later.

“The chief hack in question is Kenneth Tomlinson, the Republican-appointed head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which controls NPR and PBS. Tomlinson has carried out a low-grade ideological purge, reportedly discouraging journalists there from any projects considered too hostile to business or the GOP. He has proposed placing several fellow Republican loyalists in key positions at the corporation.

“Tomlinson told The New York Times, ‘I frankly feel at PBS headquarters there is a tone-deafness to issues of tone and balance.’ Everybody favors ‘balance,’ of course. The trouble is figuring out what that means. Tomlinson seems to prefer a particularly skewed kind. He has appointed a pair of ombudsmen who can report on the networks' political bias. One of them is William Schulz, a full-blooded movement conservative.  The other ombudsman is Ken Bode, formerly of NBC News and CNN. Bode is obviously the ‘liberal’ choice to balance off Schulz. And I wouldn't be surprised if, in the privacy of the voting booth, Bode -- like most elite journalists -- pulls the Democratic lever most of the time. But if Bode is a liberal, he is not a liberal in anything like the way Schulz is a conservative. Like most news reporters, he at least tries to be painstakingly evenhanded.

“…Likewise, Tomlinson has chosen to balance off the documentary news program "Now" with a new program featuring punditry from conservative members of The Wall Street Journal editorial page. Tomlinson explains, ‘Now is provocative. The Wall Street Journal program is provocative. Paired together, they create the perfect balance situation.’  Again, the equivalence is absurd. Now may tilt left in its choice of topics, but it practices real journalism: digging up facts, giving both sides their say, and so on. The Journal editorial page feels absolutely no need to constrain itself that way.

“The hack attack on PBS should come as no surprise. It's (writers’ error) President Bush's basic MO. Whereas Newt Gingrich sought to slash or eliminate programs he considered wasteful, Bush turns those programs into arms of his political machine. For instance, Gingrich tried to cut Medicare; Bush expanded it and turned it into a vehicle for hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies for HMOs, pharmaceutical companies and other friendly industries. Gingrich tried to privatize PBS; Bush prefers to keep it around and make it more ideologically friendly.

“The irony is that, if Gingrich had succeeded, PBS wouldn't be in these straits today. The only reason PBS has to have GOP partisans scrubbing it of any faint signs of residual liberalism is that it has to answer to the federal government. That made sense in the 1960s, when PBS was founded. There were only three broadcast networks, which forced them to cater to the broadest possible public taste. PBS needed taxpayer support in order to provide programming for a smaller, highbrow audience.

“In a world of cable television, however, it's far easier to satisfy a narrow audience and still make money. As Jack Shafer of the online magazine Slate has pointed out, the CPB controls a large share of the radio and television broadcast spectrum, which it could sell for a huge endowment and still broadcast on cable.

“When Gingrich and other conservatives promoted this plan 10 years ago, liberals railed that it was an effort to kill public broadcasting. But the only real way to kill public broadcasting is to subject it to political manipulation. And the only way to guarantee that doesn't happen is to free public broadcasting from the government.”

Okay…so many problems with this article.  “Now” practices real journalism?  From the perspective of a socialist…maybe.  The general belief that public broadcasting has in any way been balanced…I don’t think so. 

The fact that Chait acknowledges that we are spending millions of dollars of tax payer’s money to “provide programming for a smaller, highbrow audience”?   That is just rude.  Why should the rest of us “low brows” have to spend our hard-earned money to provide programming for the “high brows”?  Especially since those very same high brows are trying to destroy America with their socialist ideology?

I do agree with Chait on one point.  It is time to stop supporting public radio and television with tax dollars.  As noted by David McGuire (Minneapolis StarTribune, 5/12/05) public broadcasting is nothing more than a left-wing propaganda machine.  As he noted, just recall Bill Moyers (press secretary for Lyndon Johnson and shill for the left) and his incessant attacks on President Bush and the Republican party (during wartime).  As Mr. McGuire noted, “only a liberal could believe that promoting Democrats and smearing Republicans is somehow intellectual honesty.”

We have two choices.  Either balance the news coverage by PBS and NPR or let them fend for themselves among the rest of the foraging media.  I opt for the latter.  Let’s get government out of the media and into the world of capitalism where it belongs.

All of us have heard it…the left talking incessantly about moral relativity.  According to those on the left, there is no absolute authority.  There is no right and there is no wrong.  No one should judge anyone else because we are all right; everything is a shade of gray.

When a group of people view the world through a gray lens, everything is okay.  There is no room for debate on topics such as abortion or euthanasia.  Interestingly, there is also no room for debate on such topics as capital punishment and justifiable war.  While all of those topics involve killing, abortion and euthanasia have the approval of the left while capital punishment and justifiable war do not. 

This is moral relativism at its best.  In effect, the left is saying that if they approve of death it is acceptable but if they don’t it is not.  The difference is hard to understand unless we first understand the dynamic behind the thinking. 

The left accepts the death of a fetus because it is (in their view) not yet a living human being.  They accept the killing of a disabled person because it probably would be difficult to live that way. 

The left cannot accept capital punishment and justifiable war because they believe that we cannot judge anyone else and therefore cannot kill them.  Besides, perpetrators are victims anyway.  But, then again, isn’t a disabled person a victim?  It is all so confusing.  But that is where moral relativism leads…to a maze of grayness, as if we are looking at the world through a camera with a Vaseline-coated lens.  It is difficult to make out the detail…but that is the idea.  Grayness allows for the left to promote whatever view they choose at the time…but then they can change that view if they choose.  It is ALL up to how the “self” feels at the time. 

Oh wait.  There is an exception to that rule.  It is ALL up to the “self” to decide what is right…except when the “self” wants to do something that is in opposition to the leftist ideology of the moment.  For example, if a pharmacist chooses to not dispense birth control pills out of a personal view that it is morally wrong, the left condemns the pharmacist for denying the rights of women and defying scientific data.  But the pharmacist is making a statement of personal moral belief.  In a world of moral relativism that should be accepted because in such a world we cannot judge others.  That is the view taken by the left…unless, of course, they disagree.  Confusing?  Or is it really conscious obfuscation geared toward undermining the moral fabric of America?  I’m not sure…it is too confusing to me.

No one, neither Republican nor Democrat, is taking the issue of illegal immigration seriously.  Those opposed to illegals crossing our borders are lumped with those who oppose ANY form of immigration.  I fall into the former, not the latter category.  Citizens and permanent legal residents of the Untied States should be accorded all the rights and privileges due.  Those who have immigrated illegally deserve only to be sent back to their homelands. 

The process of legal immigration has been in place for a very long time.  That process is being subverted, not only by the illegals crossing our borders but by our own government.  Both Democrats and Republicans turn a blind eye to the problem, probably for both political and economic reasons.  One mechanism that contributes to this subversion lies in laws governing the issuance of driver’s licenses.  When illegals gain a driver’s license they gain many of the advantages supposedly reserved for citizens and permanent residents.

Only two states – Tennessee and Utah have taken steps to address this issue.  Tennessee has done so by granting “two different driver's permits: a license, for citizens and permanent residents; and a certificate for driving, primarily for those who cannot prove they are here legally.  To satisfy domestic security concerns, the state has tried to forbid the use of the driver's certificates as identification”. (Shaila Dewan, New York Times, in the Minneapolis StarTribune, May 9, 2005). According to the article, “Gov. Phil Bredesen has said ‘the certificates were a compromise that balanced public safety and domestic security’”.

“From 1990 to 2000, Tennessee’s Hispanic population nearly quadrupled to 124,000…Since July 1, when the certificate program was instituted, more than 21,000 have been issued”.

The Tennessee model might serve the country well. It is probable that Congress will soon require that states issue driver's licenses only to citizens and legal residents.  “Other states that want to allow noncitizens to drive may begin looking to Tennessee's system as a model.

In Tennessee the certificate has a very limited use.  It allows an illegal to drive.  The illegal cannot purchase beer with the document nor will it allow the holder to board a plane.”

Of course, even in Tennessee, the immigration advocates have exercised some ill conceived control over the process.  “To keep the certificates from branding their bearers as illegal, immigrant groups successfully lobbied for them to be issued to temporary legal residents as well, including students and foreign professionals.  First of all, the term “branding” is brilliant, leading one to think of horses and slaves.  Unfortunately that well-conceived descriptor serves the wrong goal.

America has a right to establish and protect its borders.  Both political parties MUST come to grips with the dangers inherent in illegal immigration.  It is the primary goal of tour federal government to protect the security of our nation.  Our federal government is failing.  Maybe Tennessee has found one small antidote to the problem. 

Healthcare costs for General Motors are growing at an astronomical rate.  According to George Will (Washington Post, May 1, 2005) GM healthcare expenditures for its employees equals $1,525 per vehicle produced.  As Will stated, “there is more healthcare in a car than there is steel”.  It is no coincidence that “GM lost $1.1 billion in the first quarter of 2005”.  It is also no coincidence that “the company has had to cut $130,000 jobs since 2000”.  Meanwhile “foreign automobile manufacturers with plants in the United States have added 27,000 jobs”…due mostly to the differing impact of healthcare costs on the employer.  With 2.6 retirees for every active GM employee, “healthcare costs for retirees of GM represent 69% of the total healthcare cost for the company”.  That percentage will only continue to grow.

Given that I don’t work for GM, why do I care?  I care because the rise in healthcare costs affects every one of us.  Medical and mental health costs are out of control.  The truly sad part is that we were saying the same thing in 1984.  Then…along came managed care.  HMO’s began to spring up around the country.  With their oversight and sometimes with their inappropriate actions, healthcare costs started to hold constant…and to decrease in parts of the country.  A great deal of waste was eliminated.  As the mechanisms of healthcare management were more and more fine tuned, the inappropriate actions of the managed care companies were reduced and generally eliminated.  Costs continued to remain constant and to decrease in many regions.

Then along came Hillary Clinton.  She brought together a huge number of providers, insurers, and consumers.  She made one mistake.  She left out the brilliant thinkers who created managed care.

Hillary had a chance to solidify the progress being made by managed care.  Through the use of a managed competition model of healthcare, Hillary could have made a real difference in healthcare.  But she failed.

Instead of going with what was working, Hillary did the typical leftist thing…she took a socialistic approach.

Seeing that the nation was not going to solidify the progress of managed care, socialists all over the country took their cue.  They began to promote outrageous legislation mandating procedures and policies that castrated the process.  Regulations spewed from one state legislature after another.  Every effort was made in state legislatures to make managed care fail so that the nation would have “no choice” but to move toward socialized medicine (so unsuccessful in Europe and Canada).  At the same time greedy physicians, psychologists and psychiatrists began to initiate litigation that crippled the mechanisms by which managed care organizations managed care.

The result of all this was a return to the 1980’s.  Healthcare costs once again began to climb.  People began gnashing their teeth in despair.  In 2005, we seem to have forgotten that the solution was at hand…before Hillary took charge of healthcare “reform”.

This is just another example of why we cannot be fooled by Hillary’s supposed move to the center.  She is a leftist.  She always will be.  She has to be because her power base is the supposedly disenfranchised (i.e., those who the left need to control to get the votes they need to win an election). 

The healthcare fiasco is just one of many examples of Hillary’s leftist failings.  Others will be explored here in the future.  In the meantime, as we try to take care of our families, we can all take note of the rising and out of control costs of healthcare…and send our thanks to Hillary.