A UK interviewer asks for insight into American approaches to the tragic shooting in a Florida school.http://bit.ly/2HLBVs3 (22 minutes)
This is a video from February, 2017. Check out how accurate my predictions of the Trump presidency were at the beginning.https://drlarryonline.com/?p=532&preview=true
The temporary victory of the New Left
Many Americans have been shocked and dismayed by the lawless behavior of students on several campus protesting the Trump election. What is going on?
There are two keys to understanding these demonstrations: first, these student protests are flourishing in an environment fostered by the faculties at these institutions; and 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 indoctrination. 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.
So, what are today’s professors teaching and why? America’s academic institutions are dominated by people who grew up in the 1960’s and 1970’s. 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.
Both causes were 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 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 first place. The champion of the Middle American view was Alabama Governor George Wallace, who also had a reputation as a segregationist.
What the anti-war movement needed was a cause larger than the discomfort of some white college boys. They needed a transcendent cause which they found 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.
The common theme of both causes was opposition to the same government which had gotten us into the War in Vietnam, which was allowing discrimination against African Americans, but which was supported by the American public. The champion of this synthesis of the two rebel causes was Bobby Kennedy.
The Roosevelt Democrats (the “Old Left”) meanwhile were enacting Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society legislation, which was aimed especially at using federal tax money to assist the poor. However, Johnson also supported the Vietnam War, and thus became the target of the anti-war movement. That support spelled his doom as president. He took himself out of the presidential race in March, 1968, In April, Dr. King was assassinated. The combined support of the advocates of the Great Society, the civil rights movement, and the anti-war movement then fell to Democrat Senator Robert Francis Kennedy, who embodied the melding of the three strands of anti-establishment support. Then, in June, 1968, Bobby Kennedy was assassinated. Thus was born the New American Left, the heirs of Bobby Kennedy. In forty years, they had only one candidate for President before Barack Obama, Democrat George McGovern, who lost to Richard Nixon in a landslide in 1972.
But many of those hippies and disillusioned youngsters went to graduate school and became the professors of the next generation. They did not give up their beliefs in social equality, the primary responsibility of the federal government for social justice, their disdain for American institutions including religion, business, nationalism, and the traditional family. The New Left ideology began to penetrate American society more the older and more powerful yesterday’s hippies became. In the protected enclaves of the universities and the media, their orthodoxy became more extreme and more absolute.
This ideology benefited through the years from the tacit approval of many of cohorts who grew up to positions of power in other fields and who allowed their children to be taught this new orthodoxy. As the years passed, more and more of these children were persuaded by this new view of American society.
In 2008, forty years after the fateful summer of 1968, they finally won their long battle for control of the American government. They elected Barack Hussein Obama as president and a Democrat Congress to back him up. It took the Great Recession to do it. But the New Left — spawned by the crisis of 1968, hardened by 40 years in the wilderness, and preaching an expanded view of human equality, anti-war idealism, anti-business bias, an anti-family and anti-religion world-view – the New Left now finally controlled the federal government of the United States of America.
The dedication to this ideology on the part of its true believers cannot be overestimated. It is based on a series of high moral convictions
These high moral goals motivate the feeling of superiority which is characteristic of the New Left, as well as the ferocity with which they attack their opponents. In the most dedicated adherents of the New Left, there is a religious fervor not unlike that which motivates the radical Islamists. Those who disagree must be defeated at any cost, even at the cost of their destruction. The New Left are not as violent as the Islamic extremists, but there are similarities.
The reason for the extreme reaction of the New Left to the election of Donald Trump is that they were convinced they had finally won their generational battle with the silent majority. They were so intoxicated by the victories of Barack Obama – especially after he defeated businessman Mitt Romney in 2012 – that LOSING was unthinkable! They were confident that they now controlled the future of America.
The New Left values dominated, they believed, the new American culture, never again to be denied. The Democrat Party, one of only two major political parties in the United States, had become the vessel of the New Left, and was considered by all the New Left press and pundits to be firmly enthroned as the majority party for the foreseeable future. Their agenda had already skipped over the 2016 election and concentrated on what their next priority, climate change, meant to the world.
Then the deplorable Donald Trump won the presidency! His Republicans won both Houses of Congress, and most of the governorships and state legislatures! The man who has threatened to undue most of what Obama did was now in the position to do it!
How could this happen? The New Left had allowed the Old Left to control the Democratic nomination until it was too late. Throughout the campaign that followed, they were continually referred to as “the status quo”, and most gallingly as “the establishment”! That critical mistake opened the door to the silent majority – who finally spoke.
Does it mean, they asked, that we are now destined to return to the shadows, that we never really won the hearts and minds of the American people? That America is condemned to live forever in free market capitalism, restricted immigration, a monetary economy, a war-like world? Must we now accept the possibility that all our beliefs about the society and the nature of human beings have been false?
In New Left enclaves such as the universities and the big cities and the media, the outcome of the election just cannot be accepted without a fight. “Send out the students, the activists, the camp followers – TV will cover. Somewhere someone will figure out a way to destroy the opposition, reverse the election, and return the nation to sanity.”
This is what we are up against in the universities and in American society. The only way to regain control of the hearts and minds of our youth is to withdraw support for the faculties who proselytize the doctrines of the New Left in our schools. This begins with local school boards, with student-centered financing of education, with sharpened protections of free speech on our campuses, especially publicly funded institutions, and by protection of students who are in effect whistle-blowers on extremist teachers and professors.
All such activities must be conducted with a careful view toward protecting the freedom of speech even of the extremists. That can only be done with a liberal use of freedom of choices by individual students (careful selection of schools and colleges and scrutiny of required courses) and of parents (school choice). Persecution of violators, however defined, would simply desecrate the mandates in the American Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech and assembly. So, I am not advocating any witch hunts. We can only fight excesses of freedom by providing more options of freedom.
But fight it we must – or we will lose another generation of young Americans!
Freedom’s Call to Action
Last evening I was the guest of a radio interviewer in Scotland. He began by remarking that a poem I recorded on YouTube was so inspiring that he wanted to play it before we began our interview. He called it universal in its appeal to all people who seek freedom and justice, even though it is an American calling out to his fellow citizens. I was touched as I heard my voice and my message being heard by people in foreign lands. Later, I realized that this video was not available even on my own website. So here it
- Any institutional policy (including government) should be fair to both parties. The days of assuming that any female complainant is at fault have to be over. Women (and men, for that matter) should be reassured that their complaint will be accepted with respect and given a fair hearing. The complainant is the victim not the perpetrator.
- The punishment for such behavior should fit the offense. The press is equating misdemeanors the same as felonies. Not all unacceptable actions are equal. The woman who recently filed a complaint against a man who told her she was beautiful is not talking about rape.
- Victims should be encouraged to speak to their friends about the event, and to report to authorities as soon as feasible. The informed friend(s) should be encouraged to accompany the victim.
- There must be procedures in every venue to deal properly with all such occurrences. Many are not criminal offences, and these should not be made public until some official action by the company, office, church, club, or whatever group is responsible for the principals has been taken to determine the facts. The press should be responsible only for reporting the news, not for adjudicating the news.
- Finally, laws and procedures must be devised to deal quickly with these complaints. Time is not the friend of the victim or the accused.
As long as the future of Obamacare is still undecided, we still have time to discuss alternatives. The debate thus far appears to center on how much government subsidies should be included in the final package. Today we look again at how much government involvement is necessary (rather than how much can we afford) to achieve our national goals. With a $20 trillion national debt, a “government lite” approach seems to be in order.
So, let’s look again at what a truly free market healthcare system might really look like — without the hang-ups of past assumptions.
(This column is edited from a version originally published on January 6, 2017. Unfortunately, we haven’t progressed very far since then. )
As always, comments welcome. Thank you for your support.
What a free-market health care system could look like
By Lawrence J. Fedewa – – Friday, January 6, 2017
As long as we are repealing and replacing Obamacare, the starting point should be setting our goals. American health care should be:
1, High quality, state-of-the-art
2. Available to all — which means
What are the principal obstacles to these goals?
a. The first and most obvious obstacle is the shortage of medical personnel. This shortage has two facets: not enough medical professionals are produced in the first place, and of those who do enter practice too many drop out before their time. 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
FILE – In this May 24, 2017, file photo. U.S. President Donald Trump stands with Pope Francis during a meeting at the Vatican. Some evangelical supporters of Trump are seeking a meeting with Pope Francis over a recent critical article
Is Pope Francis I attacking American Christians? Steve Bannon targeted with ‘apocalyptic geopolitics’
By Lawrence Fedewa – – Friday, August 11, 2017
A controversial article in La Civiltà Cattolica, a Vatican-approved publication, by editor-in-chief Jesuit Fr. Antonio Spadaro and Marcelo Figueroa, an Argentine Presbyterian pastor who leads his country’s edition of the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, has attacked the American Christians who supported Donald Trump for the American presidency.
Singled out for special opposition are the so-called “conservative” Catholics and the evangelical Christians and their alleged representative in the White House, Steve Bannon. Mr. Bannon is accused of advocating an “apocalyptic geopolitics.”
Taken by itself, the article is long, confusing, wildly inaccurate in its interpretation of American Christianity, and an unremarkable critique by uninformed foreigners of a “straw man,” that is, an opponent created by the authors for the purpose of attacking it (not unlike the “fake news” of America’s media stories).
What gives the article importance is the presumed association with Pope Francis I. Although the Pope has not commented publicly on the article, the publication is published by the Jesuits, the Pope’s religious order, sponsored by the Vatican, and the authors are well-known associates of the Pope. At several points in the text, Pope Francis’ positions are cited as differing from those of the supposed opposition. This context strongly suggests that this article speaks for the Pope. If so, it speaks poorly for the Pope.
In summary, the essence of the piece seems to be that conservative Catholics and evangelical Protestants have formed a political alliance in the United States to create a theocracy, based on an Old Testament-oriented, fundamentalist ideology, which seeks to establish the literal interpretation of the Bible as the basis of American law. Adherents to this view are called “value voters.” As their means of promoting this view, they are full of “gloom and doom” scenarios about threats to the “American way of life.” The need for drastic changes is therefore urgent. It is not surprising that the authors liken this movement to the jihad of radical Islam. To top off their point of view, they describe the vehicle for this domination of American life as the Trump administration.
They contrast this terrifying threat of apocalypse with traditional Catholic (and biblical) belief that the Kingdom of God is not of this world. Here they are a little ambiguous (to say the least) because the Bible clearly sequences the Last Judgement as part of the apocalypse. Nevertheless, the authors accuse their opponents of seeking a “heaven on earth” which can only be achieved by winning the “war of religions.” The true Christian message is to treat everyone with love as preached by Pope Francis, “Love not war!” How all this ties together is not made clear by the authors..
What to make of all this?