Browse Author

LFedewa

The Caravan(s) — What to do? Elmer says, “Honduras is Hell!”

By Dr. Larry Fedewa (October 27,2018)

Elmer and I were talking about the Caravan from Honduras. Elmer knows a lot about Honduras. His family migrated from Honduras to the United States when he was fifteen, and went through all the steps to citizenship, which was granted a few years later. Elmer now has his own business, employing three/four licensed plumbers, his wife (who runs the office), and a couple of apprentices. All are from Latin America, either citizens or on the way. Elmer voted for President Trump and intends to do so next time as well. But he doesn’t know what to do about the Caravan.        Keep Reading

The Khashoggi Matter — Was he really a “bad guy’?

President Donald Trump holds a sword and sways with traditional dancers during a welcome ceremony at Murabba Palace, Saturday, May 20, 2017, in Riyadh. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

By Dr. Larry Fedewa (October 21,2018)

British Journalist Melanie Phillips provides a different narrative of the final hours of Jamal Khashoggi in her Jewish News Service column (October 18, 2018).Far from being the liberal Washington Post opponent of revisionist Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (called MBS for short) because MBS’ reforms are too little too late, Phillips asserts that he was in reality a double agent with ties to both the radical Muslim Brotherhood and the Saudi intelligence service.

Of late, he had been straying off the beaten path by connecting with the Turkey/Qatar faction which opposes the Saudi/US/ Israel triad for leadership of Sunni Islam. In fact, he visited the Saudi embassy on that fateful day to secure Saudi government permission to marry his Turkish fiancé, who is a Turkish diplomat and daughter of a former advisor to Turkish President Erdogan.  Keep Reading

Guest Column: A/O Global Intelligence Weekly: The State of American Foreign Policy

The National Security Strategy as a Blueprint for the New Direction for America

By James S. Gilmore III, President and CEO, American Opportunity Foundation.   

As we have stated in previous essays, America today is in a world-wide conflict to determine how mankind will live in the years ahead.  This conflict engages all aspects of national power: military, economic, diplomatic, and the competition of values. Parts 1-5 of this series of essays can be accessed on online at American Opportunity.

Often we think of economics, defense, and diplomacy in separate categories or stovepipes. The truth is that all elements of national power work together to further the goal and mission of any national policy.  The Trump administration is seeking to align all parts of government activity toward one unified mission: the security and prosperity of the American people.

The new National Security Strategy (NSS) announced in December 2017 emphasizes the role of all parts of our country’s national policy working together.  The NSS reaches beyond traditional concepts of military preparedness, and combines all levels of the nation for national security. When the NSS is read, the initiatives of the Trump administration come into focus as a unified whole.  Keep Reading

The Kavanaugh Case: Food for Thought

       It’s all about the the Constitution

                                                                                                                                                      Blind Justice                                                                  

 

 

By Dr. Larry Fedewa (October 7, 2018)

A couple of things from the Kavanaugh case stand out: 1) Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a supremely well qualified candidate for the Supreme Court – Irish temper notwithstanding, and 2) the Democrats have not changed tactics in challenging Supreme Court nominations in thirty years.

Borked” in 1987

On July 1, 1987, President Ronald Reagan nominated highly regarded Circuit Judge Robert Bork of the U.S. District of Columbia Court of Appeals for the vacant seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. forty-five minutes later, Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy took to the floor of the U.S. Senate and delivered a scathing condemnation of the nominee. The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee for the Democrat majority was Joseph Biden (D-Delaware) who presided over a grueling and lengthy questioning of the nominee against a backdrop of  a highly personal and insulting news and advertising campaign. The nomination eventually lost both the committee and the full Senate votes. It was the first time in modern history that a nomination to the Supreme Court was treated in such a partisan and heated manner.

Thomas in 1991

The Bork nomination battle was dwarfed in intensity and insult, however, in 1991 when President George H. W. Bush nominated Judge Clarence Thomas to replace retiring Justice Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court. Thomas was in his 16th month as a federal judge and not as well-known or experienced as some other candidates had been. He was, however, known for his conservative interpretation of the law.                 Keep Reading

Is There a Trump Master Plan to Eliminate the National Debt?

by Dr. Larry Fedewa (September 29, 2018)

The Threat

The greatest threat to the long-term security of the United States of America is the $21 trillion (and growing) national debt. There are many possible outcomes of an uncontrolled national debt – none of them good.

Gradual outcomes have already begun in the form of efforts to undermine the position of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. The chief force behind this move is China, with serious support of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which, with the support of the Obama administration, invented its Special Drawing Rights (SDR’s) as an alternative to the dollar for international trade.  Keep Reading

Announcing “The Dr. Larry Show” on www.blogtalkradio.com & 646.929.1030

Contact: L. A. Batchelor  (For Batchelor Pad Network see below)Contact: Kirsten Fedewa (For Dr. Larry) 202.365.6936

News Release

The Bachelor Pad Network Announces “The Dr. Larry Show” starting September 26, 2018 at 7 p.m. Eastern Time 

Durham, North Carolina (September 24, 2018) – The Bachelor Pad Radio Network, an affiliate of Blog Talk Radio Network since 2010, announced the addition of a new weekly radio program, “The Dr. Larry Show,” starting Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 7 p.m. Eastern ime.

The hour-long program, to be hosted by columnist and political commentator, Dr. Larry Fedewa, will be a part of the network’s unique blend of informative programming covering sports, music, politics, religion and news of the day, currently on air from 6 pm – 9 pm Monday through Thursday.

The “Dr. Larry Show” will present a conservative view of the latest developments in Trump’s Washington, as well as interviews and insights on education, religion, and other pressing social issues, featuring Washington insiders and power players.  The show will air every Wednesday from 7pm to 8pm Eastern Time, starting September 26, 2018.  (Tune in to www.blogtalkradio.com/labatchelor for live and archived shows). Podcasts of previous programs are also available for any who may have missed a favorite program live. Listeners to live broadcasts can call in on 646.929.0130.   

The Batchelor Pad Radio Network is the creation of longtime ESPN program manager, L.A. Batchelor, whose goal is to provide listeners with diverse viewpoints on a variety of issues, from sports to politics and leading topics of the day, from a social, economic, and racial standpoint.

 

We are very excited and pleased to have Dr Larry Fedewa agree to join the The Batchelor Pad Network family. Dr Fedewa brings expertise, information and powerful insight in the areas of Politics, Education and other areas that allow ALL people to listen, ponder, research and decide based on his wealth of experience both practically and professionally. The Network certainly will be enhanced every Wednesday night at 7pm Eastern Time. We look forward to a great and long-lasting relationship,” said Batchelor.

 

“After several years of guest interviews on radio and television — including regular appearances on L.A. Batchelor’s program —  I am delighted to accept his invitation to host my own show,” said Fedewa, who wrote over 200 columns on political and social issues of the day for the Washington Times and now writes his weekly newsletter               (see http://www.DrLarryOnline.com) in addition to frequent appearances on radio and televisionHis recent books include his memoir, Inside: The Early Years, “a young Catholic searches for his place in the sun” (Richfield Press, 2017) and H. Richard Niebuhr’s Ethics of Ecumenism (Lambert Academic Publishing, 2016), both available on Amazon.

Fedewa began his career as a high school teacher, got his doctorate in Social Psychology from Marquette University, became a tenured professor, and later Dean of Park College in Parkville, Missouri. He then founded an experimental college for adult students, Park College/ Crown Center in Kansas City — and served as its first president.

He was recruited by Control Data Corporation to help introduce the world’s first major computer-assisted education system. Later, he co-founded an institute for computer programmers and consultants in the Philippines, serving the ASEAN countries, became an international expert in educational technology, and then headed federal contractor firms for over 20 years.  Dr. Fedewa founded the Washington Institute of Technology, participated in a joint venture with National Education Association, and two joint ventures with The Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health.

“I’ve had a number of careers,” said Dr. Larry, “but the challenge of being a talk radio host is intriguing –and I look forward to providing the audience with an interesting hour every week”.

To join the Batchelor pad network programs: 

  • If you miss ANY broadcast, listen to the podcast at our website at:com or tunein.com under the show name “The Dr. Larry Show” 

   SOCIAL NETWORKS Follow us at:

          padnation@facebook

        padnation2@twitter

 

 

The Origins of the American New Left

Where did they come from?                         

2016 Rally – Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Hillary Clinton

By Dr. Larry Fedewa (September 23, 2018)  America’s academic institutions today are dominated by the heirs of people who grew up in the 1960’s and 1970’s. A look at the anti-establishment movements of those days helps us to understand the themes that have survived and evolved into today’s New Left.

The overarching issues of those days were opposition to the Vietnam War, which started in the universities of the time, and the civil rights movement whose champion was

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Almost unnoticed in the confusion was President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs, which introduced the most radically socialistic legislation in American history, extending the role of the federal government to responsibility for care of the poor.

Civil rights and the anti-war causes were directly anti-establishment, and both were based on a sense of moral superiority. It did not take long for the believers in the two causes to join forces. They filled mutual needs: the anti-Vietnam movement was based initially on the objections of college students (mostly white) to being required to fight in a war which was neither understood nor supported by most Americans.

The issue quickly became whether the federal government even had the right to draft youngsters at all. Middle America stood firmly with the government on that issue, thus spawning widespread opposition to the anti-war movement and solidifying support for the War beyond what is had been in the beginning.  The champion of the Middle American view was Alabama Governor George Wallace, who also had come to prominence as a segregationist (a position he later repudiated).

What the anti-war movement needed was a cause larger than the discomfort of some white college boys. They needed a transcendent cause and they found it in the civil rights movement. That cause was social justice. Specifically, social justice as interpreted to mean equality of all Americans — legally, socially, economically and morally. The civil rights movement needed white support; the leaders were aware that without it, they would never achieve their goals.

It was a marriage made in heaven.      Keep Reading

The New Left in American Colleges

Academic Freedom or Academic Censorship?

by Dr. Larry Fedewa

Many Americans have been shocked and dismayed by the lawless behavior of students on several campuses protesting conservative speakers, harassing conservative students, and censoring student publications. What is going on? What has happened to the university as the bastion of free speech?

Two Keys

There are two keys to understanding these demonstrations:

  1. First, these student protests are flourishing in an environment fostered by the faculties at these institutions; and
  2. Second, the faculty preaches dogmas which mark a generational shift in values.

The fundamental analysis therefore must begin with the faculty. Student behavior is primarily an acting out of faculty teaching. Administrators, while generally sympathetic to the students, are caught between angry students and their Boards and other supporters demanding a stop to these outrageous demonstrations.

What is the faculty teaching and why? Keep Reading

What about a Free Market Health Care System?

Shrink insurance and government down to size! Patient-centered medical care is possible.

 

There are whole areas of inner cities and rural America, for example, which have no physicians at all. Why? Because our medical schools do not graduate enough doctors to serve the population of the United States. Why not? Lack of intelligent students? Lack of students who are motivated to give their lives in service to their fellow man? Not at all.
The reason is lack of money! Medical education is so lengthy and so costly in this country    that very few students can afford to go to medical school. This situation has created a national crisis.
One very good use of taxpayer funds would be to offer medical and nursing school students free tuition, open to all qualified applicants. We do it for the military, why not for doctors and nurses? The cost would be miniscule compared to the Department of Defense or agricultural subsidies.
This policy would have a massive return on public investment. More doctors would increase coverage of the population (perhaps there should be a requirement for a graduate M.D. and R.N. to spend two years in a “no-doctor zone”). More doctors would increase competition for the patient dollar. More could devote themselves to research. New people, new ideas, new openness to change. The quality of care would go up, and the cost would go down – a mantra we have been hearing a lot lately.
This program would also assure continuing support for U.S. medical technology which is already the envy of the world.
b. Inadequate funding
So how do we provide for adequate funding? Where does the $3 trillion we now spend go? The money flow starts with the employers who pay the insurance companies out of profits. It then goes mainly to the vast bureaucracies in the insurance companies which distribute the money, the government which oversees the money, and the hospitals and practitioners who must respond to the companies and the government. Only about one-third of the $1 trillion spent on healthcare gets to the practitioners. So how can this labyrinth be simplified?
1)       First, take the employers out of the picture. The added financial and personnel burdens on businesses of paying and accounting for employee health care is a double disaster. It is a drag on the efficiency of the economic system by vastly increasing the cost of starting and staying in a business, and on the healthcare system by removing from individuals the responsibility of seeing to their own health needs.
2)      Next, reduce the role of insurance companies. They are not chartered or ordained by God to be judging the value or disvalue of medical procedures. They are supposed to know about money, not cancer! The decisions about medical care and the balancing for costs versus therapies should be in the hands of the patients where they belong. When the ultimate decisions of life and death have been left with the patient, we will have come a long way toward patient-centered medicine. Face it, there is no way for the patient to become the main arbiter of his or her fate unless the patient is the source of the money which runs the system.
3)      This free market system would be much better and much cheaper. The individual works for the money; the individual chooses the doctor, makes the final decision as to spending the money, and pays the doctor, hospital, physical therapist, and pharmacist. So where does the individual get the money? From his or her own health savings account with enhanced income from fewer deductions, also from voluntary insurance or cooperative membership, or from family, friends or philanthropic sources. Since the money is the patient’s own, the patient is far more likely to become very cost-conscious – unlike today’s insured patient, who is always spending someone else’s money.
c. Insurance Companies and Government
A patient-centered system also reduces the role of federal and state governments (46.9% of health expenditures, NCHS, 2016). The patient doesn’t need the insurance company or the government. If both the government and the insurance companies were completely eliminated from the system, about two-thirds of the cost of American health care would be gone. Of course, there will always be some need for both, so assume that half of that cost would be gone. At today’s rates, that would be about $1.5 trillion. This is a gross number, but it shows the potential.
1) There is still a place for insurance companies in this system, although dramatically reduced. The most obvious place is for catastrophic insurance. A safety net for when something very expensive happens to someone in the family – or the church, or the credit union, or whatever assembly of people the individual chooses to participate with.
And this brings us to the role of governments.
2) The first federal government act should be to lift all interstate commerce restrictions on insurance companies, so that they are free and invited to offer policies in any or all the states they wish without the necessity of creating a separate bureaucracy for every state they enter.
3) The second federal reform should be the creation of a program for financial aid to qualified students in the medical professions. My suggestion would be a free education in exchange for a period of service in underserved areas of practice as determined by a federal government body, such as, CDC or NIH or HHS.
4) A third federal reform which would dramatically reduce national health care costs is tort reform. Everyone makes mistakes, including medical practitioners and hospitals. It is the federal government’s role to protect both the treatment sector and the patient. But the current practice of unlimited liability has led to “defensive medicine,” that is, exhaustive tests and treatments used far beyond medical purposes. These extras are done to provide a defense against the inevitable lawsuit in case anything goes wrong. This uber caution has become a major cost driver in American medicine. Congress should set reasonable and realistic limits on the monies which can be given to the victims of everything from malfeasance to honest mistakes. No more windfalls for injury lawyers.
d. Universal Coverage
The larger issue is care for the poor and the other underserved members of our nation. The concept of universal care is a noble and worthwhile goal. But socialized medicine is not the only or even the best way to achieve universal care. We have government programs to feed the hungry; to provide health care for the elderly; to protect the innocent. We can provide health care access to the poor and the underserved, whether because of poverty or location. We can also do better than the COBRA coverage for those who lose their jobs, or those who are excluded because of pre-existing conditions.
It is very tempting to design a system in which no government plays a major role. However, the most efficient way to care for the poor would seem to be a State-run program which levies a small per capita fee on each pool of insured to be placed in a designated fund, administered by the State, for the benefit of qualified citizens. A model for such a program might be the Medicaid programs in each State. Another model is the Uninsured Driver programs administered by the states.
               e. Medicare
We have now discussed the entire healthcare cycle without mentioning Medicare. There is a moral and legal mandate involved in Medicare which does not exist elsewhere. Medicare works reasonably well as a medical insurance system for those who contributed to it all their working lives. The most prudent and honorable way to approach Medicare would seem to be to leave it alone for those to whom commitments were made, even while moving the system slowly toward a patient-centered system for those just starting out, with free choices developed for those in mid-career. The pressure of the free market system we have been describing here will undoubtedly alter and reform Medicare as the new system matures in due course.
So here is what a free market system might look like. It would fulfill all our goals for an American system that is:
1. State-of-the-art;
2. Available to all in need;
3. Affordable;
4. Abundant; and
5. Well-financed.
To get there, we need to:
1. increase the supply of medical practitioners,
2. create a patient-centered system by letting the patient spend his or her own money on healthcare;
3. create state-sponsored safety nets for the poor and underserved.
 
These proposals, of course, seem radical today, even in America’s free market culture. But sometimes the most obvious solution is indeed the best. The fact is that the employer-based system we have today was initiated because the elite of another day considered average Americans too irresponsible to handle their own health and welfare. Not true today.
© 2018 Richfield Press, LC (All rights Reserved.)

Keep Reading