Senator Edward Kennedy’s passing does not provide justification for passage of an imprudent health-care bill. As Shakespeare said, “A rose by any other name would smell so sweet,” so to the contrary, bad legislation by any other name, even a Kennedy Health Care Bill, would still be odiferous.

There are many problematic aspects to the attempt to lionize the “Lion of the Senate” that shouldn’t be lost on us. And I’m not just talking about being expelled from Harvard for cheating and leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to die in his car at Chappaquidick. Everyone makes mistakes in their personal lives and as such should not be condemned for them. Kennedy himself said many times how he struggled with the consequences of the Chappaquidick incident for his entire life. As a side note, the more egregious aspect of that incident is not so much that he made a mistake, but that it proved that there are some people who are obviously above the law.

Actually, the more problematic elements are evident in the legislative efforts he championed and his causes célèbre that harmed the nation that should bode ill for a health-care bill adorned with his name. Space will restrict me to just a few examples.

Kennedy was perhaps the most ardent proponent of the Immigration and Nationalization Act of 1965. He championed the bill and on the floor of the Senate declared, “First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations.... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.... The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.” He could not have been more wrong as much of our illegal alien problem is directly attributable to that Act. Everything he promised wouldn’t happen, did.

Related to health-care reform, we shouldn’t forget that much of the current health-care conundrum was created by the Senator. His 1973 legislation created HMOs and PPOs and created the “tangled intersection of the public and the private,” according to National Review. Interestingly, he later denounced his creation.

There was also his effort to undermine Ronald Reagan on the strategic defense initiative that arguably was the final nail in the coffin of the Soviet Union. Among the documents released to the public after the fall of the USSR were KGB files documenting how Kennedy sought a means with Soviet Premier Yuri Andropov to manipulate public opinion against Reagan’s proposed nuclear deterrent. Political opposition is one thing, but an act like that borders on treason as it deals directly with national security.

Some people raise the question of where the “hate” began in our contemporary political dialogue. While there is ample evidence of vitriol in the political dialogue throughout our national history, it should not be lost on us that some of the most virulent and rancorous speech was expressed by Senator Kennedy during both the Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination hearings. Kennedy was not content to argue principles of law and denounce the nominees for views he thought were anathema to his ideology, but he sought to destroy the character and reputations of the nominees. We even have a term now applied to that malicious approach to the nomination process: it’s called being “Borked.”

Kennedy was an affable man who left his mark. But too many of his marks were wrong for the country. While some of the critical denunciations of the current health-care proposals may be questionable, the bills’ wording obviously leaves them open to less than idyllic interpretations. This makes them bad bills and leaves the door open to faulty execution on something critical to all of us and provides no solace that health-care decisions will be made in our best interest as opposed to the state’s interest. Passage would however follow the pattern of bad government with Ted Kennedy’s name affixed.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 08/23/2009

It’s alarming to witness the escalating accusations of people being “Nazis” in American politics. Bush was not a Nazi, and Obama is not a Nazi. Swastikas have no legitimate place in the American political dialogue. National Socialism (for which Nazi serves as a contraction) was peculiar to an era of German nationalism based on socialistic and fascistic principles, and was as much a cultural as it was a political phenomenon in German history.

Aside from the accusations of being “Hitleresque” from both the right and the left in today’s political environment, the most specious and disingenuous are those who claim that conservatives or these health-care protestors at town halls are “Nazis.” On the political spectrum, the further to the left you move, the more totalitarian the government is. Governmental control over the lives of individuals is characteristic of all forms of socialism, whether Communist or the Nationalist variety, and the state assumes preeminence over individual rights when taken to the extreme.

Whereas the further one moves to the right on the political spectrum, the more individual liberty is advanced. Taken to its extreme is anarchy. When analyzed logically, then, National Socialism, or fascism, is incongruent philosophically and practically to the political conservative. Those who refer to Nazism as “right-wing” are politically ill-informed and have fallen for Stalin’s game of referring to them as such. One scholar makes the point that Nazism is to Communism what Pepsi is to Coke: basically the same but with a little different flavor.

There may be some angry folk out there who find elements of National Socialism fanciful, who delight in angering the rest of us with their displays of neo-Nazi swastikas, like Hayden Lake was plagued with a few years ago. But they aren’t in the mainstream, and they aren’t in the White House, and they aren’t the hordes of frustrated Americans attempting to express their chagrin over the perceived hijacking of the American health-care system in the name of providing insurance to the uninsured.

That said, there is, however, an American statism based ideologically on similar principles to European fascism. Our statist or fascist movement has the same ideological connections with those in Europe, reliant on philosophical components of Hegel, Weber, Marx, Kung, and Sartre. It seems harmonious in principle to Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, statement, “To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.”

America’s version also seeks to concentrate power in the state at the expense of individual liberty. As Leonard Piekoff states, it “does not represent a new approach to government; but is a continuation of the political absolutism -- the absolute monarchies, the oligarchies, the theocracies, the random tyrannies -- which has characterized most of human history.” It seeks to suppress criticism and opposition to the government. It denounces and eschews individualism, capitalism and inequity in compensation. It seeks out and targets enemies of the people like corporations and those not supportive of their collectivist objectives. Economically, fascism advocates control of business and labor, not ownership of it as communism advocates. In fact Mussolini called his system the “Corporate State.” Even the term “totalitarianism” derives from Mussolini’s concept of the preeminence of the “total state.”

As Jonah Goldberg described, American fascism is “a smiley faced version” of the European cousin. Less militaristic and forceful, it shares the concepts of an organic national community and sacrificing individual liberty is acceptable if it’s perceived to benefit the whole. As Goldberg says, what unites all versions of fascism is “their emotional or instinctual impulses, such as the quest for community, the urge to get beyond politics even though all is political to them, a faith in the perfectibility of man, the cult of action, and the need for an all powerful state to coordinate society at the national or global level. Most of all, they share the belief that with the right amount of tinkering we can realize the utopian dream.”

The examination of these historical philosophical roots is significant in the context of today’s discussion on a government-run health system. Look up Marc Micozzi’s 1992 research on the German system when he was the director of the National Museum of Health and Medicine. It bears an uncanny resemblance to the public mandate being sold to us today as a “public option.

While we should unanimously denounce the use of “Nazi” name-calling in the public dialogue, there obviously are lessons that can be learned from Nazi statism, vestiges of which are abundantly evident in today’s national political dialogue. What each of us need to decide is which is more important, the individual with his rights, or the state with its power and control.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 08/16/2009

Recent attempts to compare Bill Clinton’s successful freeing of two Al Gore reporters by North Korea and George Hansen’s efforts to free American embassy personnel from Iran thirty years ago have been high on hyperbole and short on fact. Since both events have national security implications, a more thoughtful review is warranted.

After allowing Bill Clinton to bring Gore’s reporters home with him two weeks ago, North Korean press reported that Mr. Clinton conveyed a message from Mr. Obama “expressing apologies ... profound thanks ... and ways of improving the relations between the two countries.” Obama refutes those claims, though they are likely true given the President’s propensity to apologize to the world for America’s “evil” acts around the globe.

It is likely that Oliver North accurately pegged the outcome. “The smile pasted on Kim Jong Il's face in the ‘official photographs’ taken with Mr. Clinton tell the story. A price was paid. The North Koreans know what it is. The Obama administration knows what it is. But the American people don't -- and we won't unless transcripts of the Clinton-Kim Jong Il ‘conversations’ are released. Don't count on that happening soon. The administration that promised to be ‘the most transparent in history’ has made secrecy in foreign affairs a way of life.”

The situation with Iran during the Carter administration was significantly different. When Carter arbitrarily cancelled a rural stabilization program for Iranian mullahs, undermining our ally the Shah, the retributive Ayatollah began systematically withdrawing the $2.5 billion in deposits from Chase Manhattan Bank. As the withdrawals diminished deposits to levels dangerously close to what the bank had loaned to Pahlavi’s regime, the bank feared the new regime intended to default on the loans.

Carter, after allowing the Shah to fall, allowed him into New York for medical treatment. This prompted the Ayatollah to extol Iranian revolutionary students on 11/1/79 “to extend with all their might their attacks to force the U.S. to return the deposed and cruel Shah.” Just three days later the students carried out the Ayatollah's suggestion by storming the U. S. embassy and taking 66 hostages. Ten days later, after Chase Manhattan Bank importuned to the President, Carter froze all Iranian assets in the U.S., allowing Chase to cover their Iranian loans, and then some.

George Hansen, our 2nd District Congressman, who was also a ranking member of the House Banking Committee, was well aware of the tight spot Chase Manhattan Bank was in, and was convinced there was evidence of impropriety on the part of the government related to U.S. bank dealings with Iran. Hansen declared, “I really think that if congressional investigations find out anything wrong [in connection with the Shah’s regime] it’s been done by a few people lining their own pockets..and I think it is very possible that U.S. foreign policy has been conducted in such a way that allowed the opportunity for corruption to exist.”

Iran wanted to expose the banking corruption during the shah’s regime. With backing from his Democrat chairman of the House Banking Committee Hansen went to Iran armed with a proposal to conduct congressional hearings exposing the corruption. Bani Sadr, who later became President of Iran, told Hansen they would free the hostages, and allow him to take some home with him, if they were promised congressional hearings, and jubilantly reported the agreement with Hansen on live Iranian radio. Carter, however, nixed that possibility and a UN investigation when he declared that there “will be no hearings … I want the hostages.” Carter by blocking the possibility of hearings scuttled what the Washington Post called “the only proposal that ever had a chance” of freeing the hostages.

Hansen, who was cleared of all charges of impropriety by a 1995 Supreme Court ruling, was a man armed with what the Iranians then wanted: a forum to reveal the corrupt banking practices with the former regime, and a shot at freeing up their frozen assets.

Clinton, on the other hand, became a sacrificial pawn to North Korea’s whimpered cry for international legitimacy. Sure he came back with the two reporters that Al Gore placed at risk, but at what cost to national security?

It’s obvious that our current administration has an aversion to openness about the North Korean hostage release at least equal with the Carter aversion to openness regarding the causal forces behind the Iranian hostage crisis. It appears Obama paid the ransom price of positive PR, a photo-op with a former President, and increased legitimacy to a tyrannical dictator. Maybe more. The fear for all of us is, what precedence for paying “ransoms” does this set for all the anti-American dictators, terrorists, and thugs of the world?

Those who lived behind the “Iron Curtain,” or even in Nazi Germany, were fearful of expressing their true opinions about their government policies. Such reticence was necessary for they lived in fear that something they said might be reported to the authorities, leading to them being whisked away to the Gulag or the concentration camps.

Could such a thing happen in America? While I would certainly hope that it couldn’t, there are ominous indicators that truly make one wonder.

We started to see the signs last fall in the heat of the campaign when a Missouri paper reported, “Missouri top prosecutors announced this week that they will threaten and prosecute critics of Barack Obama. St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce and St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch are threatening to bring libel charges against those who speak out against Barack Obama.”

Then in March Congress passed “The Give Act,” which among other things, established a Universal Voluntary Public Service corps of 250,000 “volunteers,” modeled after the Public Allies program, a group Obama led in Chicago which was organized to “agitate for justice and equality.” It seems to be the foundation for his “National Civilian Security Force” which he referenced in a speech last year in which he advocated creating a domestic service corps as “big and well-funded as the U.S. military.”

Then there was the leaked Agency Assessment from Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, which identified all those who oppose Obama’s policies as potential domestic terrorists. The Assessment was distributed to law enforcement agencies across the land including what law enforcement should watch for, like anti-abortion and Ron Paul bumper stickers, “Don’t Tread On Me” flags, and pickup gun racks.

The latest ominous sign is the mobilization of the President’s forces to stave off criticism of “Obamacare,” the legislation pending in Congress which would essentially take over the health-care industry. This effort is similar to what Hugo Chavez did without legislation in Venezuela when he took over the oil industry and put the media under government control. Parenthetically, Obama doesn’t need to do that with the media, as they essentially function as the official state-run propaganda machine already.

Then earlier this week the White House website had this entry added by Linda Douglas, formerly of ABC News, “There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”

It seems the Obama White House is taking “domestic spying” to a whole new level by encouraging his disciples to report fellow citizens who have a different perspective on his effort to socialize the health-care system.

Senator John Cornyn issued a statement condemning the domestic spying program and requested a response from the President what his intentions were with those reported to the White House. Cornyn said, “I am not aware of any precedent for a President asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White House for pure political speech that is deemed ‘fishy’ or otherwise inimical to the White House’s political interests.” Senator, we’re seeing a lot of things done by the White House without precedence in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

This week the Organizer in Chief sent out emails to 13 million of his followers urging them, “We've got to get out there…I want you to argue with them, and get in their face.”Dutifully responding to their Organizer’s beckon, labor unions sent out memos to their members answering the call to political arms. In a memo sent out by AFL-CIO President John Sweeney: “We want your help to organize major union participation to counter the right-wing ‘Tea-Party Patriots’ who will try to disrupt those meetings, as they've been trying to do to meetings for the last month...”

Organizing and encouraging your followers is one thing. But the White House setting up “snitch” websites for domestic spying and creating a political “brown shirt” corps across the nation is quite another. Somehow all this seems so un-American.

We do not have a health care crisis. Our health-care in this country is outstanding, and particularly here in Eastern Idaho. Portneuf Medical Center and their incredible staff provide superb care, as my family was reminded of just recently.

We can’t even truly say we have a health-care insurance crisis. I’ve not seen any better breakdown of the numbers than what Investor’s Business Daily printed a couple weeks ago. They pointed out that 85% of the population, or 258 million people, have health insurance. Of those, 89% are happy with the coverage their insurer provides, according to an ABC News poll.

They examined the most reliable figures of an estimated forty-seven million people who lack health care insurance. Of those, 20 million can afford to buy it, according to former CBO Director June O’Neill. About a third of the other 27 million are illegal aliens, while most of the rest are single and under 35 and choose not to have health insurance.

IBD completes the math and points out, “When it's all whittled down, as few as 12 million are unable to buy insurance — less than 4% of a population of 305 million. For this we need to nationalize 17% of our nation's $14 trillion economy and change the current care that 89% like?”

Yes, there are some that lack insurance, but that hardly means that they don’t get acceptable or adequate health care. Law dictates that all who enter an emergency room must be treated. We currently have about 37 million Americans living below the poverty level, but Medicaid covers 55 million. We pay $350 billion a year to cover them. And as many as 11 million of the uninsured qualify for other government run programs, like Medicaid and SCHIP, and programs for the indigent. Many don’t bother to sign up for the programs even though they are eligible.

We can’t believe what the politicians are saying about current proposals congress is considering, for they either haven’t read them or don’t understand them. There are numerous cases cited recently of congressmen meeting with constituents where the constituents know more about the bill than the congressmen do. And the current bills “contradict the President’s assurances” that we will not be sacrificing our choices and freedom in health care, according to CNN Money. CNN proved it by analyzing the actual verbiage of the bills and identified five key freedoms we lose if either plan is passed.

First: the freedom to choose what coverage we have. The government will mandate what the plans cover. Second: the freedom for being rewarded for healthy living, as the Obama plan enshrines into federal law one of the worst features of state legislation, community rating where everyone’s accepted but higher premiums are charged. Third: the freedom to choose high-deductible coverage, as everyone is forced into a “one size fits all” plan. Fourth: the freedom to keep our existing plan. Private plans are grandfathered for five years, but if anything changes, they are forced into the government model. Fifth: freedom to choose your doctors. The government plan mandates we go through something called “medical home,” which functions like an HMO. You’re assigned a primary care doctor, and the doctor controls your access to specialists, directly contradicting what the President is saying.

The CNN analysis concludes, “In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the wrong direction.”

We have more of a health-care cost crisis than anything. If Washington was serious about reducing costs they could start with true tort reform which would cap claims amounts, and pass a “loser pay” law that requires the loser in a suit to pay the legal costs. That has a tendency to sift out a lot of spurious claims. And they could allow health-insurance competition across state lines.

Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm.” Our politicians should do the same. Their diagnosis is flawed, and their prescription will maim, not cure, the patient.