Rush Limbaugh is the Patron Saint of Citizen Journalism

Rush Limbaugh is the Patron Saint of Citizen Journalism
By Dave Hinz - Publisher
2/1/2007

LOVE HIM OR HATE HIM, HE STARTED IT ALL!


Citizen Journalism, the participation of the average citizen in the gathering and reporting of the news, owes its Genesis to Rush Limbaugh. He, more than any other individual, revolutionized the news gathering process, providing a viable alternative to the filters of the Mainstream Media.

Before Rush Limbaugh hit the airwaves with his nationally syndicated radio program in 1988, there was no such thing as “participatory news.” It was, in fact, conventional wisdom that a program such as his could not succeed. He was going to talk about national politics? He was not going to interview guests? He was presenting a contrary view to the Mainstream Media? It would never work!

Some 20 million listeners later, it has been the success of Rush Limbaugh that has saved and transformed AM radio. He has created an entire genre known as Talk Radio. His success has spawned the careers of countless other radio personalities, from the Pit Bull Sean Hannity to the drug-burnt-out and former DJ, Don Imus. If Hannity takes Rush’s mandate to confront the MSM to the next level with his “final hour shootout,” Imus provides a counter balance, as his often incoherent ramblings seem to suck up to the same MSM that once prevented him a forum.
None of the above mentioned radio talk show hosts are trained journalists. They are, in fact, the vanguard of the Citizen Journalism Movement. Through their efforts, the public heard, for the first time, opinions contrary to the MSM. Hearing these opinions expressed openly on a national forum, countless listeners found themselves saying, “Yes! Yes! Someone is finally saying what I believe.”

It was this validation of the opinions held by millions of people, unreported anywhere else in the MSM, that has been the driving force behind the success of talk radio in general and Rush Limbaugh in particular.
This has also been, to a great extent the downfall of such liberal efforts as “Air America.” There is nothing new about Air America. Nothing to set them apart from the same messages echoed and re-echoed throughout the MSM, only said, in that forum, with such hatred and vitriol that even most liberals are offended.

As Rush Limbaugh transformed the airwaves, the 90s saw the emergence of the World Wide Web, better known as the Internet. Bulletin Boards provided, for the first time, a means for individuals to post their thoughts, not just nationally, but internationally. CompuServe brought internet users together into a “community.” America Online (AOL) saw the potential and took it to a new level with “chat rooms;” forums in which large numbers of people could interact and converse in “real time.” Most of these turned into dating forums, but some political debate happened in these rooms, as well.

Then, along came Matt Drudge. Drudge was the next innovation in Citizen Journalism. He used the internet to pass along information. His site, while simplicity in its concept, is nothing more than a conduit through which information flows. Through sources, anonymous tips and networking, Drudge has scooped the MSM on so many stories that he has become a pariah to them.

It was Drudge who first proved to the MSM the potential of the internet, both for its wide tentacles and the immediacy of the information flow. Commercial websites sprang up, sensing the potential. Like minded individuals formed communities to share and debate ideas. On the left, sites like Democrat Underground and DKos flourished. The right developed sites like RedState, The American Thinker and recently The Minority Report. These discussions circumvent the filters of the MSM, as both sides of the political spectrum believe those filters stymie the free flow of information.

These sites, and literally millions of smaller ones like them, proved the opportunity for average citizens to create Web Logs, or Blogs. These, blogs are often little more than online diaries, as people poured their thoughts out into the Ethernet. This has become ripe for Citizen Journalism to flourish.

Many Citizen Journalists comb the internet each day, discovering news topics to post and discuss. Often stories taken from the MSM are examined and dissected. Erroneous reports in the MSM have been exposed to these bloggers, doing the background digging the MSM has forgotten how to do.
Each step in this process has taken us closer to true Citizen Journalism, where the people bypass the MSM, going many times, directly to the news sources for their information.
There is no greater evidence to this phenomenon than the continued decline of newspaper readership, news magazine readership and network news viewership.

Today, with the fragmentation of the media through cable and satellite providers, as well as the internet, the influence of network news has waned. The influence of the internet, in fact, has been so recognized by the MSM, that not a single MSM outlet is without its own internet website.

The Irony of this has been, however, that the immediacy of the internet has led to ever declining viewership, as their viewers turn to their internet source to read about breaking news now, rather than wait until 6:00 or 11:00.

The next naturally progression in the evolution toward pure Citizen Journalism are sites like The Hinzsight Report. The immediacy of news feeds from all over the world is combined with Citizen Journalists reporting and commenting on that news. Exclusive content, as well, as Citizen Journalists taking to the field, interviewing and reporting on topics missed by the MSM. Add to this, the interactive nature, as readership is allowed to comment and discuss the topics of interest, and you have the logical progression of the field.

From Rush Limbaugh and talk radio, to The Hinzsight Report and Citizen Journalism, a natural evolution has taken place. As the internet changes the world, the Hinzsight Report will be there.

Good News is No News

Good News is No News
by Lance Thompson - Contributing Editor
1/30/07

Why don’t the main stream media report our victories an enthusiastically as they do our defeats?

On Monday, Iraqi army troops, supported by American and British forces, delivered a major defeat to an insurgent cult and averted a deadly attack on Iraqi. News of this this victory has been overshadowed by coverage of the weekend’s anti-war rally in Washington, which purported to show how unjust, unwise and winnable the war is.

The victory occurred twelve miles from Najaf when Iraqi troops attacked a concentration of militants from the group Jund al-Samaa (Soldiers of Heaven). The terrorists had planned to disguise themselves as Shia pilgrims and attack Shia clerics and worshipers gathering in Najaf during Ashoura, the holiest festival in the Shia calendar. The attack was to include up to 700 terrorists, and would have resulted in a devastating and brutal massacre.

Instead, Iraqi troops discovered and attacked the Soldiers of Heaven as they gathered, igniting a fierce battle which raged for almost 24 hours. Iraqi troops requested assistance, and received American and British air support and help from American armored units. Iraqi military sources estimate 200 enemy dead, including the cult’s leader, Dia Abdul Zahra Kadim. A further 100 terrorists were captured, along with hundreds of automatic weapons, mortars and Russian-made rockets. Iraqi forces suffered 5 fatalities. Two Americans were killed when their helicopter went down during the battle.

This story has been given scant attention in the main stream media because of the preference endlessly to play excerpts from the massive anti-war rally in Washington over the weekend. Jane Fonda came out of protest mothballs to aid and comfort a new enemy, Sean Penn threatened to withdraw his support for politicians who refused to withdraw their support for the war, and Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins acted as co-ranters and chant leaders. California Congresswoman Maxine Waters announced that she wasn’t afraid of George Bush, nor was she intimidated by Dick Cheney, and the lack of any threats or intimidations from the White House would seem to verify her statement. Michigan Congressman John Conyers reassured the assembled masses by informing them that George Bush could not fire them–evidently no presidential appointees were present. And Jesse Jackson was present because there were more than two cameras pointed in the same direction.

You may have heard some or all of these highlights on Monday, but you’d have to be paying very close attention to hear about the military victory in Iraq. Imagine, however, if the results of the battle had been reversed. Imagine that hundreds of terrorists had attacked an American troop concentration. Imagine if 200 Americans were killed, and 100 captured, and the enemy had lost a handful of fighters. Would a major American defeat be given the same minimal coverage as a major American victory?

If the opposite outcome had occurred, video of casualties would have played all day, interspersed with film of terrorist supporters dancing in the streets and firing their weapons in celebration. We would have had chilling video from al Jazeera showing the leering countenances of the terrorist leaders, threatening even bloodier attacks. We’d have live coverage of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong-il declaring national holidays. And finally, we’d have "breaking news" bulletins of every Congressman, Senator, candidate, and non-working actor who could get to a microphone calling for retreat, surrender, and the resignations of every member of the administration right down to the White House gardener. The recriminations and indictments would go on for days, while every member of a House and Senate committee raced his or her colleagues to be first to call for an official investigation of the tragic defeat.

But instead of a defeat, instead of hundreds of dead American troops and hundreds more Iraqi civilians, it was the Soldiers of Heaven who paid the price. They were found out, engaged, and nearly annihilated before they could carry out their merciless murder spree. Iraqi forces took the initiative, fought bravely, and prevailed, as President Bush and military leaders have said they would. This was more than a military victory for allied forces. It was a demonstration of the dedication, courage and proficiency of Iraqi troops who have been trained by the world’s best--the American military. Yet this victory is little more than a footnote to the day’s news.

This brings to mind one question–why? Why is an American military victory so much less important to the media than an American military defeat? There can be only one answer, the one many journalists continue to deny even as they graphically chronicle our losses and denigrate our triumphs. The main stream media is institutionally invested in American defeat. That is why the bad news is emphasized and the good obscured. If Americans realized that the Iraqi army is growing strong, that terrorists are being killed in large numbers, that the conflict is a noble endeavor to save innocent lives, and most of all, that it can be won, then the unthinkable could happen. American readers, listeners and viewers would turn off the tap on the news sources that have lied to them all this time, and seek the truth elsewhere.

Americas Dunkirk

Americas Dunkirk
By Thomas Cefalu- Staff Writer
1/30/2007

President Bush is obviously having a tough time with the public opinion war on Iraq. There are many reasons for this, but surely one of the most fundamental is a flawed perception about the event that started the Global War on Terror: the attacks of 9/11.

The conventional, largely liberal view runs like this. Yes, it was an outrage and a tragedy. The proper response was to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan that had supported Bin Laden. Domestically, an expansion by government in the regulatory sphere, especially concerning airline security, was the solution. These initiatives are enough to produce an acceptable security environment. Overreaction would be a threat to civil liberties. The law enforcement model is the suitable and morally preferable model to deal with terrorist risks. Such attacks are not likely to reach the scope of the 3,000 casualties that occurred on 9/11, which is the outer edge of the envelope in terms of the danger we face. We must move on.

Well, maybe.

But America was damned lucky on 9/11. As horrible as the actual events were, they could have been so, so much worse. The 1993 bombing’s intended lethality was obscured by the Keystone Cops planning of the conspirators. The goal was to kill everyone in the buildings, and hopefully more. The plotters of 2001 were much more professional.

If the Twin Towers had collapsed immediately on 9/11, the attacks would have killed 50,000 people right off the bat. If they had toppled sideways instead of disintegrating downward vertically, they would have destroyed other buildings in their path and all the inhabitants in and around them, engulfing lower Manhattan in a wider swath of flames, debris and panic. Had the courageous citizens of United Flight 93 not taken their stand, we could have lost the US Capitol as well. Can you imagine the effect on public morale had this scenario unfolded on the nation’s television screens?

But the Towers stayed up for precious minutes, creating the life-saving calculus that prevented a terrible tragedy from turning into an
absolute catastrophe. The first responders, especially New York’s
courageous firemen, created an environment that allowed most of
the workers to evacuate in an orderly manner. The workers themselves were New Yorkers at their best – they stayed cool and helped each other escape the doomed buildings. A spontaneous network of cooperative ventures allowed the workforce of lower Manhattan to leave the stricken area quickly – by foot, by surface
transport and by boat.

The parallel with the successful British evacuation of Dunkirk is striking. The banks of the East River and the Hudson have their precedent in the beaches along the English Channel. . Time, that most precious of commodities in a crisis, favored the good guys attempting desperately to find a way out. The spectacle of private boats snatching soldiers away from the port and onto waiting British warships is burned into legend. Dunkirk was a military disaster with the attendant tragedy of many casualties. But most of the British (and French) forces survived and reached freedom.

Imagine what history would say of Winston Churchill had he addressed the British nation after Dunkirk and said: “Well, that was a close one. Now let’s get back to normal” Or if he said something similar when the Blitz started to wind down, or the Battle of the Atlantic, or any of the other trials of World War II. Imagine his reputation as the steward of Britain’s national interest if he said in 1942: “We shouldn’t fight the Axis forces in North Africa or Greece or Italy or Russia or the Far East; our only issue is Poland, which started this thing.”

Alas, our governing classes of today have traveled a long road since the heroic times of WWII, and just about all of it has been downhill. A natural, but dangerous, desire to return to normalcy and a talent for legalistic quibbling about where our forces should be have obscured the central truth about the Global War on Terror: wherever the forces of al Qaeda and like-minded enemies are, that’s where the war is. And those enemies are determined to kill as many of us as they can if they obtain the resources to do it. We must recognize that 9/11 was not some natural catastrophe like a hurricane, where you bury your dead and move on. It was a battle in a war that is still not won. Yes, it was survivable and we survived and moved on (thanks to the leadership of George W Bush and Tony Blair and the other good guys). But if we slide back into complacency and denial, we may not be favored with another Dunkirk, and we will stand condemned in the eyes of our suffering posterity.

Econ 101: Who Benefits from Boost in Student Grants?

Econ 101: Who Benefits from Boost in Student Grants?
By Gary L. Wolfram, Ph.D. - Guest Writer
Reprinted with the permission of Business & Media Institute

'Round and 'round the taxpayer money goes ... and where it stops, nobody knows. Oh, and tuition will go up, too.

One of the priorities of the new Congress, and something approved of by most of the media, is to expand federal grants and loans to college students. While this may sound like a good way to increase access to higher education, it is another case where people, in Sherlock Holmes’s words, see but do not observe.

Before Congress increases spending on financial aid to college students, it should think about what the end result will be. That result will certainly be higher tuition costs for all students, and may result in no net tuition reduction for those who receive the aid.

Suppose the federal government decided to provide $5 billion in grants to people to buy DVD players. Most people would realize that such grants would increase the demand for DVD players, bidding up prices for everyone. Those who didn’t get the grants would certainly pay a higher price than before the grants. The people who got the grants would also be paying the higher price, and thus while the net price they pay might be lower than before the grant, they would not benefit from the full amount of the grant.

The only question is how much the price of DVD players would rise – not whether they would rise. Thus, the companies that sell DVD players would certainly capture some of the benefit of the grant.

For some reason, people seem to not recognize that this same thing will happen if the federal government gives more than $94 billion in loans and grants ($18 billion in grants) for students to go to college. There should be no question that such aid drives up tuition prices. How much tuition goes up will depend upon a myriad of factors and will differ by college and university. In some cases the net tuition will go up by the amount of the grant, so the student receiving the grant gets no net benefit and the rest of the students face higher prices.

So who gets the true benefit? In some cases it will be the college, and in some cases the state government will capture it.

When students receive grants to attend college, the demand for seats at the public university, say the University of Michigan, will rise. The University might raise its tuition in response to this extra demand, and all students pay a higher price. The students with aid will have some relief from the higher price as long as the tuition doesn’t rise more than the grant.

The University might, instead, keep its tuition the same and lower the in-house financial assistance it gives to students. So the student with the Pell grant might get less financial aid from the University – meaning the Pell grant displaced University of Michigan aid, and the University now has captured the Pell grant.

Another possibility is that the Michigan legislature might appropriate less money to the University of Michigan. The University might keep its tuition the same, provide less financial aid from the University to the student, ending up with the Pell grant but a lower appropriation – so in that case, the Michigan legislature captures the Pell grant.

The bottom line is that billions of taxpayer dollars handed out in grants and loans increases tuition for everyone. It may be providing some reduction in the net cost of tuition for some students, but it might simply allow some colleges and universities to keep more revenue by reducing their financial aid expense. Or, the Pell grants could end up being captured by state legislatures reducing appropriations to public colleges and universities.

With 4,000 colleges and universities in the United States, each having a different board of directors with different objectives, some funded by state governments and some not, it is unlikely that anyone can determine where the benefits of Pell grants would end up. The only clear point is that Pell grants raise tuition for all students.

Rather than spending billions more on a program with such detrimental and uncertain effects, Congress should do what it can to improve the market for human capital. The late Milton Friedman suggested decades ago that we develop human capital contracts, whereby investors could pay for a student’s education in return for a share of that student’s future income. This is a much more reasoned method of ensuring that students who will gain from access to higher education receive that opportunity. Perhaps the time has come for another of Professor Friedman’s ideas to turn into public policy.

Dr. Gary L. Wolfram is the George Munson Professor of political economy at Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Mich. He also serves as an adviser to the Business & Media Institute.

The President WILL NOT Be the Lone Ranger

The President WILL NOT Be the Lone Ranger
by Gavin DeFreese - Senior Writer
Birmingham, AL - 1/29/07


Today was not my typical Monday morning with me hitting the streets early, attempting to beat the rush hour traffic on my usual commute. Instead, I donned the less than familiar mantle of the citizen journalist and headed for my public library where my senator, Republican Richard Shelby of Alabama, was holding a town hall-like meeting. I planned to ask him to comment on a single issue, but was pleased to hear the senator also speak candidly about others including education, health care, and immigration. One thing I can say for certain about Senator Shelby is that he makes himself very accessible to his constituents, this was his 1361st such public meeting since being elected back in 1986.

What would cause this mild mannered blogger from Alabama to alter his daily routine and morph into a motivated citizen journalist? A Democrat senator from Delaware, that's what… it is at this point that if you were listening to the audio you would hear the phonograph stylus being dragged across the platter.

That's right, Joseph Biden, the Democrat senator from Delaware is sponsoring a particularly odious non-binding resolution that is critical of the President's proposed troop surge in Iraq. Senator Biden has been quoted as saying that the sole purpose of this resolution is to "demonstrate to the President he's own his on" and implied that the President is only trying to postpone the loss of Iraq. When I asked Senator Shelby about this resolution and Senator Biden's comments, he said that Mr. Biden was wrong and that he plans to make it clear with his time on the Senate floor that "the President will not be the Lone Ranger" and that he would pledge his opposition to this resolution. Senator Shelby spoke adamantly that he was against any resolution that could be even remotely construed as being harmful to our troops.

Folks, it doesn't take Mr. Biden predicting a Saigon-like evacuation of Baghdad to understand that this resolution could be considered as harmful to our troops and used as comforting propaganda by our enemies abroad, but unfortunately he has said it anyway. The senator from Delaware has spoke out loud and often against the administration's prosecution of the war, yet not having the courage of his convictions he continues to vote for funding and even the recent confirmation of General Petraeus, who supports the surge and more. It seems that Mr. Biden, along with many of his compatriots, are not so much interested in truly changing the course of the war as they are in using it as a tool to criticize the Commander in Chief for their own personal gain. This non binding resolution is purely symbolic in nature and has no teeth or possible enforcement, much like a campaign promise from a cheap politician. Taking this into account, I do not think it is merely coincidental that Senator Shelby mentioned that Mr. Biden has decided he would join the growing gaggle of Presidential wannabe's this month.

Senator Shelby also spoke about several other issues including No Child Left Behind and health care. Possibly alluding to a little buyer's remorse, Senator Shelby mentioned that he had voted for NCLB but that he felt in practice it has not proven flexible enough and that decisions of this nature should be made more at the state and local level. While not openly opposing the President's health care proposal from the recent State of the Union speech, Senator Shelby did voice his concern. He became much more animated when he warned of the pitfalls of a "nationalized" health care system. Citing the potential of long lines and restricted choices for health services, Senator Shelby gave his own opinion with "I like to choose my own (healthcare)".

Where the senator clearly broke rank with President Bush, in a productive and civil manner I wish Mr. Biden could emulate, was on the topic of immigration. His aide brought out a visual aid explaining that there are 12 million illegal immigrants in the US making it clear that Mr. Shelby planned to speak on this manner regardless if the audience brought the matter up or not. He is clearly against any proposal that includes amnesty bringing up the failures of the past and the following problems with any practical enforcement. I was glad to see this, and also heartened by the manner in which the senator politely and constructively made his case against the President's immigration proposal.

Here's hoping that Senator Shelby will not be the only one who in this critical juncture backs the President because it is right, and not by reacting with whatever is politically expedient. Right now it seems we have a group of politicians out there that have seen the situation turn dire, and instead of being supportive they have become opportunists. There's an old joke my father used to tell me that dated back to the radio days of the Lone Ranger. It had the Lone Ranger telling Tonto "we've had it" after being backed into a box canyon by hostile Indians.

The punch line was similar to the gist of Biden's resolution.

"We, what's all this we stuff paleface!"

Permission Media

Permission Media
Quentin Langley - International Editor
1/29/07

Technology changes behaviour, lifestyles, relationships and society. Technology changes the nature of Burke’s ‘little platoons’ which are the real basis of society. Society is not the state. At the heart of this technology is the technology of communication and cooperation.

The Roman roads united half a continent – then the stirrup destroyed the Roman Empire and roads fell into disuse. The printing press devolved education from the elite to the masses. The triangular sail opened the world to trans-oceanic trade and the steamship tipped that balance further. The railways made a reality of ‘manifest destiny’. Radio brought voices – and TV faces – into voters’ living rooms.

But all these technologies are, at the deepest level, broadcast technologies. They take the objects or information from one person or organisation and transmit them to many places. Only the telephone is interactive, and that only on a one to one basis. What our latest technological leap has done is to turn media consumers from passive recipients to active participants.

We are entering the age of permission media. The media no longer arrive fully formed and demanding to be heard. Those parts of the media that we receive are those that we invite in.

In journalism schools – such as the one in which I work – people are either excited or fearful. Sometimes, alternately, they are both.

Why should we listen to citizen journalists, people ask. We would not turn to citizen plumbers or citizen accountants. But the reason we would not do so is that we are convinced trained plumbers and accountants bring skills and standards of behaviour that we cannot expect to find in those untrained. If we believed what media schools teach about journalistic ethics – about fact checking, truth seeking, lack of bias, and the separation of news and comment – then trained journalists would indeed have something to offer that we could not expect to find in amateurs.

But we do not believe that the mainstream media (MSM) is offering these things. That is why we are increasingly turning to wider, participative, media.

This is not to say that media brands will die. The value of media brands is likely to increase, not decrease. Among the plethora of web-based media it can be hard to tell the difference, from a quick glance, between a professionally produced website and something knocked together by a 12-year-old in his bedroom. So people will return again and again to trusted brands. Some of these trusted brands will arise from the MSM – the old offline brands stretched onto the web. It is likely that people will continue to turn to the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times for their business and financial news. But new brands will arise too. Brands where news is sifted and opinions debated by a myriad of editors. From this mass of material we will each sift again – each becoming our own editor.

News and opinion will be open to challenge and debate. Received wisdoms and old consensuses will break down. One way media will give way to the logic of markets and the wisdom of crowds.

Media are changing. Hop on board and enjoy the ride.

Iraq is No Viet Nam

Iraq is No Viet Nam
by Ken Taylor - Senior Writer
1/28/07


"Bringing back memories of Vietnam, " or , " Iraq has become a quagmire like Vietnam, " or, " just as in Vietnam, " or this famous misleading quote from Senator Ted Kennedy, "Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam." I heard the news reports from Saturday's protests against our presence in Iraq until the comparisons of Iraq and Vietnam made me sick to my stomach. 60's throwback icons like Susan Sarandon, and, "Hanoi, " Jane Fonda were among the , "celebrities, " who spoke at the Washington Mall. Now that a new generation is listening to politics , "Hanoi Jane, " has decided to come out of the anti-war closet thinking that the newbies have not heard of her traitorous acts during Vietnam when she visited the North Vietnamese stating that our troops were war criminals and then at the , "Hanoi Hilton," an infamous POW prison in Hanoi the capitol of North Vietnam attempted to coax our soldiers into admitting their, "war crimes, " against North Vietnam. Well Ms. Fonda we do remember and we still hold you accountable for your acts and still consider you a traitor.

Accounts of the protests range from a few thousand to over 100 thousand, the latter estimated by the organizers of the protest but denied by Mall park police. This is the first misconception as a Vietnam comparison. The protest of the 60's were many times extremely violent and when they met at the Mall the numbers were in the hundreds of thousands. Many of those who protest today are left overs who still live in the 60's and jump on any, "anti," band wagon to bring back old times. The , "Hey, Hey, Ho, Hoers, " and the rhymers were in abundance. While there is opposition to Iraq it is small in comparison to Vietnam
The only true comparison of Iraq and Vietnam is the way it is being used as a political tool and that the Democrats are threatening to defund the war or restate the use of force authorization issued in 2001 in order to tie the President's hands and leave the troops abandoned as was done near the end of Vietnam.

Unlike Vietnam US loses are minimal in comparison. Combat deaths in Vietnam range from a low figure of 57, 605 to a high figure of 58, 159, with the number on the Vietnam War Memorial at 58, 178. Iraq combat deaths as of January 27th are at 3, 079. The Iraq invasion was in March of 2003 which equates to 46 months in theatre and an average of 67 American loses per month. United States combat involvement in Vietnam lasted nearly ten years with a peak total of 553, 000 troops in 1969. The peak years of combat were from 1964 - 1971 with total combat loses of 56, 009 during the eight year period. This is an average of 7002 American loses per year, which is a far cry from the totals of Iraq. While every soldier lost is a tragedy especially for their loved ones the distortion by the media and the left with continual body counts and Vietnam comparisons is ridiculous.

Unlike Vietnam we are fighting an enemy that attacked us. Many on the left try to spin that Iraq is not part of the global war against terrorism but the evidence and the truth shows otherwise. While Iraq was not directly involved with 9/11, documents are numerous showing Hussein's support financially to Al Qaeda and many forget the terrorist training camps especially that which contained an aircraft fuselage used for teaching the most effective way to hijack a plane. Also forgotten were the murals showing planes hitting the twin towers with Iraqi symbols on the planes. Additionally there are continual reports of battles against Al Qaeda in Iraq and the call by their leaders to their loyalists to continue the fight with the US in Iraq.

Where Iraq has similarities to Vietnam lies in the continual media bias against the war and the use of their influence to shape American opinion and feelings about the war. As in Vietnam every news account makes mention of a body count not as a memoriam to those who have sacrificed but as a tool to turn the country against the war. And as in Vietnam this tactic is working. The other similarity is the political use of the war to push an agenda. Democrats are using Iraq to hammer at the President and in so are assisting the media in turning the nation against the war. Political badgering played a pivotal role in turning America against Vietnam and it is doing the same today.

The President mentioned at the end of the State of the Union Address that, "our cause in the world is right." While most in retrospect see little justification to Vietnam the goals and accomplishments in Iraq are just and necessary. While many on the left claim otherwise in their political use of the war, our troops have brought freedom from a tyrannical regime to more than 50 million people. We have eliminated a threat to the world through the distribution of weaponry both conventional and WMD that were being and would have been used by Islamic radicals in their Jihad against the United States. Victory in Iraq brings with it a free ally, a stability through Democracy in the region, the elimination of a harbor of terrorism and a country who terrorist would use as a base of operations. It also brings with it a weaker Iran as a free nation will be at Iran's border showing the people of that Islamic terror state what freedom is and that they too can have a country free of the Islamic radical influence.

Pfizer Layoffs - The Ripple Effect

Pfizer Layoffs - The Ripple Effect
by Dave Hinz - Publisher
1/28/07


The recently announced layoffs of more than 10,000 employees nationwide, and 2400 jobs in Michigan, threaten to widen the unemployment woes experienced by that state. While Pfizer has stated that as many as 70 percent of those Michigan jobs will be transferred to facilities in Connecticut, the effects on the economy in Ann Arbor and Kalamazoo will be enormous.

Analysts suggest that the 2,100 jobs lost in Ann Arbor will create a ripple effect, causing up to 10,000 jobs lost in the immediate area.Businesses along that Plymouth Road corridor will be forced to lay off workers, and some may close. Two large strip malls across from the massive 2 million-square-foot Pfizer facility are expected to be hardest hit.

The University of Michigan North Campus complex, which has maintained a symbiotic relationship with Pfizer, along with the University Medical School Research programs at the University Hospital. The UM Hospital is a research hospital and teaching facility, with a close relationship to the pharmaceutical giant.

It has been predicted that the University might well have to lay off researchers of their own, cutting back drug research now under way in the Medical School.

Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm has promised to lead an effort to find research jobs within the community among the nearly 100 small high tech research companies that have sprung up over the past few years. The Mayor of Ann Arbor, John Hieftje and University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman have called a meeting with community leaders
for Monday, to discuss options available. Among the topics under discussion are what to do with the 177-acre facility. It is seen as unlikely that another pharmaceutical company would be interested in the facility.

Similar efforts are under way in Kalamazoo where 250 jobs will be lost, affecting the community widely. The Kalamazoo facility was once the home of Upjohn Co, which has already faced sever cutbacks through the last decade as mergers within the pharmaceutical industry cost the area jobs.

The economic losses are expected to skyrocket into the hundreds of millions of dollars, as businesses are forced to close, and the city and state face tax losses. Unemployment claims, already among the highest in the nation, are expected to climb as well.

Ann Arbor residents fear a housing glut as well, as those homeowners promised jobs in other states attempt to sell their homes. Washtenaw County is already has one of the highest costs of living in the state, with property values well above the average. Residents fear that a large number of unsold homes, or homes in foreclosure will drive the values of their own property downward.

Watergate at Number 10 Downing

Watergate at Number 10 Downing
by Quentin Langley - International Editor
01/29/07


George W Bush has already lost Congress. Later this year he will lose his closest ally – Tony Blair. Blair’s departure – planned, at least in outline, for some time – may end up being forced by embarrassing circumstances, which could leave his
successor weakened.

Blair will resign at some point in 2007. He has promised it will be before the Labour Party conference in September. This does not mean, however, that there will be a new election. The Prime Minister holds office by virtue of leading the ruling party – rather as the Speaker of the House does in the US – so when the Labour Party elects a new leader that person will, automatically, become the new Prime Minister.

A Labour leadership election could take several months. The Party needs
to convene an electoral college made up, in equal parts, of the Party’s MPs, local activists, and union representatives. However, if Chancellor (Treasury Secretary), Gordon Brown, is unopposed, it could just as easily be over in days. Within those constraints the timing of Blair’s departure is up to him. He may want to announce his resignation in the run up to mid term local elections in May with his successor taking office after the elections are over. That way neither the departing leader nor his successor will be definitively to blame if, as expected, the Labour Party is humiliated.

However, recent events could put a completely new perspective on Blair’s resignation. A long running investigation into corruption and the sale of honors seems to be leading ever closer to Blair’s own desk. Just a week ago it seemed as though one of Blair’s advisers and a few businessmen, at most, would face charges. But now an aide who works at Downing Street has been arrested, and then released without charge. Significantly, the police investigation seems to have shifted focus. Like Watergate and the Monica Lewinsky affair, attention has turned from the original charges to the cover up. Reports emerged last week of a secret computer system – or possibly just e-mail system – in use at Downing Street. Perhaps it is nothing more than aides using private e-mail accounts to send each other messages while at work. But the Enron investigation showed that e-mails can be used as evidence in court.

This weekend the Sunday Telegraph reported that the police now had a note written in Blair’s own handwriting which could tie the investigation to him. But no-one seems to know what the note actually says, so it is far too early to predict what could come of it.

So far the police have interviewed Blair just once. They didn’t caution him, so he was being interviewed as a witness, not a suspect. But the media are rife with speculation that the handwritten note could spark another interview – and perhaps this time the police will advise him of his right to remain silent.

The longer the investigation continues, the more it could mar the smooth transfer of power that the Labour Party has been hoping for. A source very close to the Labour leadership told the author that he expects Gordon Brown to succeed to power, announce a raft of policy initiatives, and then call an early election to capitalize on his honeymoon with the voters. Brown has been itching to become Prime Minister for decades, and is still resentful that Blair outmaneuvered him at the last leadership election in 1994. Though a very powerful figure in the government, Brown undoubtedly has new policy ideas he wants to introduce. Our source said he will be a bit like a child in a candy store when he finally takes control.

The black cloud of the Scotland Yard investigation could upset all predictions. Brown does not have to call an election, and will only do so if he thinks he will win. If Blair is facing possible criminal charges the chances of an early election would seem to be very remote. Imagine the impact if Blair was arrested in the last week of a campaign!

The odds that Brown will succeed Blair look stronger then ever. John Reid, his strongest rival just weeks ago, has suffered a devastating series of setbacks as leaks have revealed his Home Office (Interior Department) to be responsible for outrageous incompetence. Until now the government’s safest pair of hands, Reid is suddenly looking weak and bewildered. None of the scandals that have engulfed him is new. Most predate his appointment to his current role and reflect as much on his predecessors as on him, but it is only now that the information has leaked out. Such leaks seem to afflict all Brown’s rivals, with monotonous and deeply suspicious regularity. As a result, it is unlikely that anyone will oppose him.

Instinctively Brown is almost as much of a modernizer as Blair. In terms of global trade issues he is, if anything, even more aligned with America. Blair feels most comfortable vacationing with family in France or Italy. Brown’s favorite vacation is taking a mountain of economic textbooks to Cape Cod. But sources close to Brown have recently been hinting he will aim to pull British troops out of Iraq. At the Treasury he has kept a pretty low profile on this issue. As Prime Minister he will do whatever it takes to be popular. He has not schemed for thirty years to get this job only to have it snatched away at his first election.

Brown will expend no political capital to help George Bush. It is not in his nature. He is tribally loyal to the Labour Party – and that means to its Democrat allies in the States. But he lacks Blair’s political skills anyway. A master strategist and policy wonk, he has none of Blair’s warmth. He is a (smarter) Gore to Blair’s Clinton; Cheney to his Bush; Spock to his Kirk.

The policies may not change much, but Bush will not find so friendly a voice on the other end of the phone.

Al Qaeada Has a Deep Bench

Al Qaeada Has a Deep Bench
By Lance Thompson - Contributing Editor
1/25/2007

On 16 January 2006, the Ninth U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco shielded a convicted terrorist behind its robes when it reversed the sentences and conviction of Ahmed Ressam, who came to this country to detonate a bomb at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX).

Ressam was born in Algiers in 1967, and showed an early interest in American fashion and culture. During a trip to Paris for medical treatment when he was 17, Ressam read some Algerian-language political books that convinced him that the Algerian government was corrupt. Upon returning to Algeria, he joined an Islamic rebel group. He left his homeland in 1992 during the civil war and emigrated to France, then, on a forged passport, went on to Montreal. He was stopped by immigration officials there, but he claimed to be seeking political asylum, and was admitted into the country. In Montreal, he supported himself on Canadian welfare, and by robbing tourists on at least 30 different occasions. He joined the Armed Islamic Group (GIA), a terrorist cell affiliated with al Qaeda, whose foiled plots included a plan to hijack an airliner and pilot it into the Eiffel Tower. Ressam helped other terrorists obtain false identification documents, and provided himself with a false Canadian passport, on which he traveled to Afghanistan for advanced terrorist training under one of Osama bin Laden’s senior officers, Abu Zubaida.

Ressam returned to Montreal, schooled in firearms, chemical weapons, and explosives. He made a reconnaissance trip to LAX, and determined that he could hide explosives in suitcases and detonate them in crowded passenger waiting areas. Along with several accomplices, he planned the strike and prepared the explosives.

On December 14th, with 124 pounds of explosives hidden in the spare tire well of his rented car, Ressam took the car ferry from Vancouver to Port Angeles, Washington. Port Angeles Customs Inspector Diana M. Dean noticed Ressam’s nervous and evasive behavior, and summoned two other inspectors–Mark Johnson and Dan Clem. Johnson stood with Ressam as Clem searched the rental car, noticing a white powder in the trunk. At that moment, Ressam fled, attempting to carjack an escape vehicle. Customs inspectors apprehended Ressam before he could get away. Two of his accomplices were subsequently arrested, one of whom testified against Ressam in court.

Ressam was tried and convicted on nine counts, including conspiracy to commit an international act of terrorism, smuggling explosives, and transporting explosives for the purpose of committing a terrorist act. A potential sentence of 130 years was reduced to 22 years when Ressam agreed to provide information on his fellow terrorists and their activities.

On 16 January 2006, the Ninth Circuit reversed one of the nine convictions, that of transporting explosives for the purpose of committing a terrorist act. The Ninth Circuit judges contend that Ressam’s conviction of the charge had to be overturned because the statute did not require that the explosives had to be linked to the act of terror. Thus, the prosecution proved that Ressam possessed explosives while involved in a terrorist act, but the Ninth Circuit holds that the prosecution must further prove that the explosives Ressam were carrying were the ones that he intended to use in the bombing plot that he confessed to. On the basis of that absurd technicality, the Ninth Circuit reversed one of nine convictions, and sent the entire case back to the lower court for re-sentencing, with the requirement that the court justify the rationale behind the sentence.
When terrorists stage a successful mass-murder attack, there is no punishment on earth harsh enough to fit the crime. Every single victim–man, woman or child–is a life cut short, an outrage against civilized society, an irreparable hole blasted in a family and a community. To take the murderer’s life is but puny recompense and retribution for such a crime. When the victims run into the hundreds, or even thousands, then the punishment loses all power to provide justice.

It is only when a terrorist is prevented from committing some merciless atrocity that his punishment can be timely, appropriate and just. Ahmed Ressam has been a criminal and terrorist most of his adult life. He supported himself by preying on innocent victims while planning far deadlier crimes. He trained under al Qaeda leaders to be a terrorist, and supplied aid and expertise to other terrorists. His masterpiece was to have been the wanton slaughter of hundreds of innocent travelers he’d never met and had no particular grievance against. His goal was the highest possible body count, the greatest effusion of blood, the maximum sorrow he could inflict on stunned family and friends. This is the man the Ninth Circuit is bending the Constitution to protect and shield.

The Ninth Circuit is the most overturned federal appellate court in the nation, having approximately 75% of its decisions reversed. It is probable that this decision also will be reversed. But some of these decisions become law, and that is something to remember when voting–these judges are appointed by the President.
It is also important to remember that the decisions of appellate courts are not footnotes to history or judicial minutiae that the ordinary person need not pay attention to. These decisions bear on our everyday lives, our personal safety, our country’s future. Every time a convicted terrorist goes free, or avails himself of protections provided by the Constitution he is sworn to destroy, it emboldens his fellows and reassures his imitators.

In the war against terrorists, we are all potential targets, possible victims, likely mourners, just as are the judges of the Ninth Circuit who handed down this decision. But those judges are also one thing more–they are nothing less than accomplices in the very acts of terror that threaten our nation. They should be ashamed

Take the Fifth–Unless You’re a Cop

Take the Fifth–Unless You’re a Cop
By Lance Thompson - Contibuting Editor
1/24/07

Everybody has rights. Police officers just have fewer of them.

The Fifth Amendment holds that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." This protection applies to suspects with long criminal records, perpetrators caught in the act, political figures mired in scandal, and any citizen who has any occasion to deal with the justice system. The protection applies to every citizen, except the citizen who carries a badge.

Police reports are considered evidence. An officer is sworn to tell the truth in his reports, as a witness is before testifying in court. An officer who falsifies any report is subject to reprimand, dismissal, and criminal prosecution.
When an officer makes an arrest, his report must include all the facts, actions and observations the officer is aware of that bear on the case. In the event of an officer involved shooting, an occurrence which can expose the officer to criminal prosecution and civil liability, he is not absolved of the responsibility to submit a factual, complete report. An officer may in fact be giving evidence against himself as part of his official duty. He cannot refuse to submit a report on the grounds that it may incriminate him. A police officer is thus denied the protections that every other citizen, including criminals, enjoy under the Fifth Amendment.

Further, due to the rights that even criminals enjoy to sue for libel, the media has tacitly agreed never to describe a murderer as a murderer, a drug dealer as a drug dealer, a terrorist as a terrorist, until a verdict has been reached in a court of law. This agreement extends even to armed robbers caught on security camera video, or criminals who have admitted their crimes. However, this agreement does not extend to police officers.

Media reports of arrests or law enforcement activity always refer to the perpetrators as "alleged" or "suspected" as in "the suspected bank robber was arrested a block from the bank, in possession of the stolen money and identified by several eyewitnesses," or "the alleged carjacker was filmed by a traffic helicopter as he fled from police, narrowly missed striking several pedestrians, and crashed into an orphanage."

However, when describing the actions of police in such instances, there is no such tiptoeing around responsibility. The media reports will tell how many officers were involved, how many fired their weapons, how many bullets were fired in total, and how many "suspects" were wounded or killed by police. There are no "allegeds" or "suspecteds" when it comes to police. If videotape exists, especially if it shows force used by police, it is shown endlessly. If interest wanes in the case, the video is not omitted, but merely trimmed to the most violent and provocative few seconds.

How are the details of these cases revealed to reporters and journalists who provide all these details to their public? Do journalists do their own investigations? Do they hire independent detectives? Do they send out their own teams of CSI wannabes to gather evidence? No, the provocative details of the stories are largely gathered from police reports, submitted by the officers involved. Not only do the police provide evidence against themselves that can be used in criminal and civil trials, they also provide the raw material for their own prosecution by media.

There are some who don’t trust the police, who believe that they must be constantly monitored, their powers regularly reduced, their initiative limited. But with each limitation on police powers, an equivalent benefit accrues to criminals and enemies of this nation. Every search a police officer can’t make, every question he can’t ask, every investigation he can’t undertake creates another realm in which criminals can operate with impunity.

A 29 December 2006 Wall Street Journal article by Robert Block noted that large city police forces are taking the lead in combating terrorism by enforcing local laws to break up terrorist cells and terrorist support groups. The Los Angeles Police Department and other municipal law enforcement groups are arresting suspected terrorists for violating ordinances that don’t require the making of a federal case. Police officers not only enforce local laws and protect us from harm–they are also a vital and active part of our national security system.

Police officers bear an awesome responsibility–to protect all citizens from harm, lawlessness and anarchy. Whenever they are called upon to use force to accomplish this mission, they are pilloried in the press, sacrificed to public opinion, second-guessed by civic authorities, and placed in jeopardy of their livelihoods and liberty. Of all the people who should be shielded by Constitutional rights, police officers are the most deserving, and the least protected and served.

Oops, They Thought They Were Contractors

Oops, They Thought They Were Contractors
By Gordon Taylor - Managing Editor
1/24/07

Illegal Aliens Mistake ICE Vans for Contractors


It seems it just wasn't their day, a poor, tired and hungry group of guys just looking for an honest days wages in return for an honest days labor. As they waited around their local 7-Eleven warming themselves
on a hot cup of Joe, several contractors vans pulled into the parking lot to get some morning coffee.

A scene repeated everyday through out America, day labors looking
for work has almost become a bit of Americana. These gentlemen are
willing to work for their livelihood, not like panhandlers that
hold up a sign scrawled on a scrap of cardboard that says, "Will
Work for Food", hoping some caring sole will feel sorry for
them and stop to hand them a 5 or 10 dollar bill. If you actually
stop and offer them a chance to earn an honest wage, shovel your
snow or rake your leaves for instance, they will tell you that someone
is coming back to pick them up, but thank you for the offer.

This new group of day laborers are not the chronic homeless looking for
a few fast bucks for a pack of smokes and a 12 pack of their favorite
brew, these are hard working individuals that often work 12 or more
hours a day. Often they are sought out by contractors that just
need 1 or 2 guys to help close out a job, they are preferred, because
they have a good work ethic and are readily available.

In Baltimore on this sunny and cold winter day this scenario was about
to repeat itself once again. As mentioned above, said group of laborers
were milling around a local 7-Eleven and approached a group of work
vans that had just entered the parking lot. Little did they know,
the vans were occupied by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents, not contractors. While
our little group of eager wage earners were willing to go to work,
there was one problem, they were here in the United States illegally.

As it turns out there were 24 in the group, 10 were Honduran, 8 were
Mexican, 5 were Salvadoran and 1 was Peruvian. Out of this group
of men, 6 had criminal records in the United States, 8 of them had
failed to comply with final removal orders from an immigration judge
and 1 of them had been caught at the border 4 times attempting to
enter illegally. All were arrested and taken to an immigration holding
facility.

Still simply a bit of Americana, only this story had some bad luck attached.
How many mornings lately have we seen stories, much like this one,
played out on the pages of a favorite morning newspaper or website,
such as this one.

Well, here comes the rub:

The nonprofit immigrant-advocacy group CASA of Maryland called
the arrests an "illegal raid" that was beyond ICE's
authority.

Asking a bunch of people about their immigration status is well beyond
the confines of a specific warrant," CASA spokeswoman Kim Propeack said.

The group organized a press conference yesterday afternoon
in front of the 7-Eleven at South Broadway and East Lombard
streets, where the arrests occurred.

CASA officials invited other immigrant advocates and faith leaders
to protest the arrests, which they say unfairly targeted Hispanics,
and call for reforms to the country's immigration system.

"We're making it more difficult for people to be good,"
said the Rev. Robert Wojtek, pastor of neighboring St. Michael
and St. Patrick Roman Catholic parishes. "What sin against
God have these people done?"

These men were here illegally, breaking the law by simply being in that parking lot. What is it that the spokesman for CASA doesn't understand, how can he call the arrest of "illegal aliens" an "illegal raid"?


And the Rev. Robert Wojtek asked "What sin against God have these people done?" The obvious answer to me pastor is none. God did not create our immigration laws, but the God given talents of men and women certainly did.

The Pfizer Layoffs - An Analysis

The Pfizer Layoffs - An Analysis
By Dave Hinz - Publisher
1/24/07

Could It Be The Political Climate in Michigan and New York?

The announcement by Pfizer that the company intends to cut 10,000
jobs throughout the country, and 2,400 dearly needed jobs in Michigan
has prompted speculation as to motives. While several facilities
will be closed, others will be enlarged. This, we are told is
simply downsizing the workforce and increasing the efficiency
of those remaining facilities.

The question that comes to mind, however, is in the selection of which facilities
to close. The Research Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan stands to
lose 2,100 jobs, although as many as 1000 of those employees will
be offered jobs in other states.

Another major facility in New York is slated to be closed, again, with some
of those employees allowed to transfer to other sites, in other
states.

From the announced cuts, it would appear that the two states hurt the hardest
would be Michigan and New York, with Connecticut
the biggest winner as the Pfizer center in Groton is expanded.
One cannot help but wonder if politics do not factor in the company’s
decision.

Michigan has long been recognized for its hostile business tax climate.
The state has both a corporate income tax and a single business
tax. The good news, however, is that the voters chose to eliminate
that single business tax this year, a move expected to attract
business to the state.

But that is not the entire story. The recent election also returned Democrat
Jennifer Granholm to the office of Governor, despite a one-state
recession that has rocked the state. In addition, the Republican
controlled state house has been replaced with Democrat control.
Granholm has stated, and the Democrat leadership has agreed, that
the state of Michigan needs to raise taxes to make up for the
shortfall created by the repeal of the SBT.

What form that tax increase will take is unknown at this time. That uncertainty
might well have factored into Pfizer’s decision. Then, there
is the matter of US Senator Debbie Stabenow, recently returned
to office as well, who has been a vocal opponent of “Big
Pharmaceuticals.”

A similar situation is taking place in New York. The Republican governor
has been replaced with a known tax-and-spend Democrat. The New
York legislature is looking at ways to raise taxes, even now.
In addition, both New York Senators, Schumer and Clinton have
been vocal leaders in the congressional fight to attack the pharmaceutical
companies.

On the other hand, Joe Lieberman has long been known to be a friend to the
industry, an industry, I might add, that has been his greatest
political contributor.

It is possible that this is all nothing more than a coincidence. There is certainly
nothing wrong with a company rewarding those states that show
that company the greatest gratitude. The obligation of a corporation
is to make money for its stockholders. If the political or tax
climate in a state make that obligation impossible, that company
has every right to move to a state that does.

Hillary Clinton - The Run is Based on a Lie

Hillary Clinton - The Run is Based on a Lie
By Ken Taylor - Senior Writer
1/23/2007

It has now been three days since Hillary, (the Hildabeast), Clinton announced her candidacy for the 2008 Presidential bid. The talk shows, morning news fluff shows and commentators have been buzzing about her possibilities and her viability especially in light of the new media darling Barak Obama. Yet despite his new found celebrity when Hillary announced all eyes focused on her and the whirlwind that surrounded Obama faded. In all of the hype and the speculation that has surrounded her announcement there are two facts that stand out concerning her candidacy and especially how she will be handled by the media for the next two years.First - her candidacy is based on a lie. I have not heard in any interview, commentary, news sound bite or anything else for that matter one mention of her lie to the people of New York as she ran for re-election as the junior Senator from that state. From the very beginning of her re-election bid she was asked repeatedly whether she was considering a run for the Presidency in 2008 and in every instance either she or one of those assigned as a spokesman for her emphatically denied any thought of running in 08. Infact in several occasions she stated that she was thinking only of 06 and not beyond and that if re-elected she would serve her entire six year term and NOT run for President.

The people of New York bought into this snow job because in polls conducted prior to the 06 election the question was asked whether they would vote for Clinton if they thought she was running in 08. The response by New Yorkers was overwhelmingly against her re-election if she planned on an 08 bid. Polls showed that if she was not running in 08 she would win re-election to the Senate with at least 60% of the vote. If she were running in 08 and not completing her six year Senate term she would only receive 35 - 40 % of the vote thus losing her Senate seat. Her deception in New York gained her re-election to the Senate and now just over two months later she fulfills her lie to the people of New York and announces for 08. This is a Clinton trait that she has in common with her husband. She like Bubba beleives that the Presidency is her destiny and she will say or do whatever she has to in order to fulfill that destiny. Truth or lie in the Clinton mind the end justifies the means.Two - she will NEVER be scrutinized. Hillary has a great deal of baggage to bring into a run for the Presidency. Baggage that stems from her eight years as First Lady with lingering questions concerning her actions while in the White House, ( remember Travelgate?), as well as her involvement in White Water along with a myriad of other questions shrouded around her. Will she receive the grilling on this baggage as other candidates do? No ! The media even in light of the hype with Obama favor Hillary and she receives only favorable reporting and when asked questions she is delivered the largest softballs that any politician has ever received.

In an interview on the Today Show this week she was asked about her candidacy and her familiarity as a candidate. She mentioned a statement made by, "a friend, " that she is the most famous woman in the country that no one knows anything about. Of course she said that this was one of the goals of her candidacy to let the American people know who she is. This too is a fallacy that will remain so until election day in November of 08 providing she gets the nomination of the Democrat Party. While Hillary is well known, no one knows her. She is again shrouded in mystery and we see only the superficial image that she wants everyone to see and not the conniving, angry and manipulating woman that those who have worked with her describe. Of those only Dick Morris has survived in the public arena as all other critics have disappeared from public view.

For the next two years while other candidates both Republican and Democrat will receive the almost excessive scrutiny both politically and privately that accompanies anyone running for President, Hillary will remain an enigma to the public being portrayed only as she wishes people to see her. In debates, interviews and reporting she will be treated with kid gloves and when questioned will receive softball questions as she always has, designed to make her look and sound Presidential.The next two years will be a constant barrage of Hillary. While Obama and Edwards do have viable chances of giving her a run for the nomination, she is the , "rock star, " and when all is said and done her liberal ideas will be released to satisfy the base thus gaining her the nomination. Her catch 22 will then come into play as she will have to reverse herself considerably to capture moderates in the 08 General Election which will also cause her to lose liberal support prior to the election. While I see her winning the Democrat nomination her catch 22 situation and her polarizing effect with the electorate, she's either loved or hated no in between, will be her undoing to win the Presidency. Come to think of it she may very well complete her six years as junior Senator from New York!

The Lesson of Medicare Part D

A Stitch In Time Saves Nine- The Lesson of Medicare Part D
By Thomas Cefalu- Staff Writer
1/23/2006

The more vociferous critics of President Bush, both the conservative and the liberal ones, remind me of the Borscht Belt joke that Woody Allen recounted in Annie Hall. Two vacationers in one of the Catskills resorts start comparing complaints about their hotel:

“Gee, the food in this resort is really terrible!”

“Yes, and such small portions!”

That about sums it up. The conservatives think his “compassionate conservative” policies are a terrible departure from ideological orthodoxy. And the liberals complain about how tiny the programs are compared to their ideal of huge government.

So it is encouraging when someone of the stature of Rich Lowry actually praises Medicare Part D in the august spaces of National Review.

He observes how the program has actually turned out to be quite cost-effective, with the average drug benefit down 40% from the original projections. Competition between insurance programs has lowered prices, while seniors are quite satisfied with a program that has produced a real tangible benefit for those on limited incomes. The Democrats are angry that the government is not “negotiating” (aka “setting”) prices, and point to the success of the Veterans Administration in holding down drug costs. But the VA does this by means of a national formulary- in other words, rationing. It restricts the availability of new drugs, and directs the patient pool to use older (and thus cheaper) drugs, thus limiting choice and potentially effectiveness.

In addition to the humanitarian benefits of Medicare Part D, there are strategic reasons to support it. For better or worse, the American people chose to have the federal government become the primary insurer of elderly people over forty years ago. At that time prescription drugs were a much smaller piece of the treatment pie than they have become with the phenomenal advances in drug therapy. Without a drug benefit, Medicare was in desperate need of modernization. And when things get desperate, that is when government overreacts and gets incredibly intrusive. The prudent man acts in a timely fashion now in order to prevent overreaction later.

Finally, Medicare is supported by taxes, and unlike Social Security, there is no limit on the income subject to the Medicare tax. Conservatives should take a leaf from the book of conventional tax planning. The program is here to stay, so how do we make sure it is effective while minimizing the cost? One of the core principals of tax planning is deferral: do not pay a tax now that can be legitimately paid later. Because of the medical effectiveness of prescription drugs and their relatively low cost compared to hospital treatment, the Medicare drug benefit can actually defer expenses, which is practically the same as deferring taxes. It is far better, financially and philosophically, for Medicare to pay $20 per month now for a man’s blood pressure pills than to pay the enormous up-front therapy costs of