Friday, July 31, 2009

PWW - Policing While White

Listening to some of the liberal mainstream media commentators about the arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates one would think that it was the natural order of things that the police officer, Cambridge MA, PD Sgt Crowley was a racist. This is their worldview.

Yet, race is not a factor in the attitude of cops toward suspects according to a 2003 study. In fact, in at least one city, the cops show more regard for blacks than they do for whites.

The research was conducted by three criminologists, and published in the August 2002 edition of Criminology, the Journal of the American Society of Criminology. This study is the academic equivalent of a weapon of mass destruction for the race-baiting, cop-hating, social activist/trial lawyer industrial complex. Yet, not one word about it was mentioned in the media - not even the putatively "conservative" media of talk radio or Fox News Channel.

The authors of the study were Professor Stephen D. Mastrofski of George Mason University, Michael Reisig, and John D.McCluskey (both of Michigan State University). Mastrofski is the Director of the Administration of Justice Program at George Mason University. Reisig is an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice and McCluskey is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice. The study consisted of observing the encounters with citizens by police departments in St. Petersburg, Florida and Indianapolis, Indiana, in 1996 and 1997.

The study was a part of a larger project about community policing. Professor Mastrofski told me, during a phone interview, that he and his colleagues were attempting to determine how cops interact with community. Mastrofski said he and the other researchers believed that they would find that race was a predictor of how cops behaved towards citizens they interacted with either during routine calls, investigations or arrests. However, the conclusions by Mastrofski, et. al. were contrary to their own preconceived notions and the beliefs of most Americans. They learned that race was not a factor.

The researchers defined abusive behavior by cops as that which referred to the "citizen’s identity are unambiguously gratuitous, and illegitimate. Such things as derogatory statements, slurs, or ignoring the citizens questions." The professors determined that the attitude of the suspects, the environment of the encounter, and the age of the suspect were a better indicator of the attitude of the cops toward the suspect than race. As Professor Mastrofski told me "…in general if a suspect is nasty, then he will be treated nastily."

In the case of the Saint Petersburg (Florida) Police Department, the researchers determined that the cops were more "nasty" towards white than black suspects. This is even more astounding in that it not only disproves conventional wisdom but stands it on its head. Professor Mastrofski qualified those findings by saying he and his colleagues determined that in St. Petersburg, the deferential treatment of blacks could be accounted for by the " St. Petersburg’s chief’s effort to promote better treatment of minorities." Regardless of the city, however, the study provided unexpected and unconventional data when considering race.

These results according to Mastrofski confirmed the results of a prior study, published in the early 1970s, by Professor Al Reiss, who evaluated interaction by cops in departments in Washington D.C., Boston and Chicago. Although Mastrofski told me this study did not evaluate all variables and therefore was not quite as comprehensive.

Yet, despite the potential to debunk the conventional wisdom that cops mistreat blacks, this study received no major media reference. The race hustlers, academicians, and the mainstream media-especially the mainstream media- have propagated this myth of preferential treatment of whites - a myth that says all cops are the proverbial Southern sheriff.

After the Gates incident liberal talk show hosts like Chris Matthews perpetuated the police as Bull Connor stereotype - the Alabama sheriff whose department abused those blacks arrested for protesting segregation. It is in their interest to maintain this image with the American public. It helps them obtain funding, it helps them obtain favorable verdicts in civil suits, and it helps politically. Any scholarly research that portrays white cops as treating blacks better or the same as whites will adversely affect these objectives.

Matthews lives in the "every cop is a criminal" world.

Mastrofski insisted that he did not want the study to be construed to mean it proves that cops do not abuse blacks in other departments or that there is no racist cops. However, this study certainly disproves the presumption that policemen as a class are guilty of racism. This presumption of cops being guilty of racism is the media standard for all controversial incidents involving cops and minorities. This is the perception routinely propagated by the liberal chatterati. This perception is so ingrained in our modern culture that it virtually guarantees an accusation of mistreatment of minorities by cops is accepted as fact.

By perpetuating this fraud, "civil rights" advocates and liberals prevent black criminals from being arrested. This has a deleterious effect on African-American communities. Liberals become the African-American communities worst nightmare.

Just as unfortunate is the complicity of the mainstream media in this deception. I would suggest that readers write the New York Times,the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and other publications and media, both liberal and conservative, and demand that they report about this study.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Maybe It Wasn’t the Cop Acting Stupidly, Mr. President

Maybe it was the Ivy League Professor
By Michael P. Tremoglie

It was about 9 p.m. on a cool October night when the call came out over police radio.

“Report of a break-in, two black males!” the dispatcher said dispassionately.

The address was near 56th and Baltimore Avenue, in Southwest Philadelphia – the 12th District. The district was a violent place - earning the nickname the “Fightin’ 12th” because of the proclivity of some of the locals to assault police officers.

My vehicle assignment that evening was an Emergency Patrol Wagon (EPW) - or more simply a van. Normally Philadelphia police officers work alone, unless they are assigned to an EPW.

My partner that evening was African-American. He was a taciturn veteran. He knew how to do the job and he knew how to teach rookies as I was then.

We arrived on the scene in a few minutes. This was the “east end” of the district – an African-American neighborhood.

As we approached the house we saw, through an open window, two black men, watching television and drinking beer. My partner let me take the lead – his method of mentoring.

I knocked on the door. One of the men answered. I explained we had a call of a burglary.

He looked at me incredulously. Then, with a grin, said that he had trouble opening the door. He opined that was why someone thought he and his friend were breaking in the house.

It all sounded perfectly plausible to me. I said OK. The man closed the door and I started to return to my vehicle.

However, my partner stopped me.

“Did you get any ID from them? “ He asked rhetorically.

Before I answered, he led me back to the door. This time he knocked.

The same person answered.

He asked for identification. This elicited an angry, righteously indignant, response. His companion joined him. The two shouted at my partner and me.

They said we were only doing this because they were black men. We would never ask white men for identification.

My partner took great exception to this. He became angry.

Just as the situation looked like it was going to explode, an elderly woman came down the steps from the second floor. It was obvious she had been sleeping.

“What is going on here?” she said, bewilderedly.

Then she uttered the words that crystallized everything.

“Who are these men officer? What are they doing here?”

As it turned out, the men had broken into the house – the home of this woman and her elderly sister. They were sound asleep completely unaware that they were there.

The bad guys were very clever. When they noticed the police approaching, one quickly turned on the television. The other took two beer cans out of the refrigerator.

My veteran partner suspected this. He knew something was amiss. There was nothing concrete. It was just a hunch - one that was correct.

There are a lot of variables in police work. There are a lot of uncertainties. Things are not formulaic. Judgments need to be made in nanoseconds.

All of this came to mind as I read about the arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates. He was arrested after police received a call of two black men trying to break into a house in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Actually, it was Gates and his driver forcing open the jammed door of his own house.

When Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley arrived, he questioned Gates. Apparently, Gates was offended. He accused Crowley of racism.

Reports are that Gates did show identification to Crowley. However, an argument ensued and Crowley arrested Gates.

I do not know why Crowley arrested Gates for disorderly conduct. I know that disorderly conduct, specifically, “DCM3” – i.e. Disorderly Conduct, Third Degree, Misdemeanor - was occasionally used by Philadelphia police to arrest people who were not cooperating with police commands.

You see, Mr. President, it is quite possible that the white police sergeant, James Crowley, was not “acting stupidly” as you say. It is quite possible that the distinguished, black, Ivy League university professor was the one who was “acting stupidly.”

Perhaps he was in a bad mood because, after traveling half way around the world, he could not open the door of his expensive house in an affluent neighborhood - a neighborhood in which the white police officer cannot afford to live.

Mr. President, if you really want to bridge the racial divide, then you need to recognize that racism is just as much not blaming someone because of their race as it is blaming someone because of their race.

It is time, Mr. President, to stop casting white police officers as Bull Connor.

Michael P. Tremoglie is the author of the critically acclaimed police novel “A Sense of Duty” available at

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Ricci v. Sotomayor

What Are the Criteria for Protected Racial/Ethnic Groups?
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tea Time Blog

The confirmation hearing of Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor was interesting in that it highlighted the inherent bigotry of the American left, its political representatives in the Democratic Party, it hypocrisy and its socio-political philosophy.

During the hearing, Judge Sotomayor was questioned about her opinion in the reverse discrimination case of Ricci v. DiStefano. An Italian-American firefighter was denied a promotion he earned via a civil service examination that was annulled.

The lawsuit against the city of New Haven, Connecticut by 18 firefighters alleged that they were denied promotions because of their race. One of them was Hispanic the rest were white. They all passed the test.

However, the city threw out the test results because none of the African-American applicants passed. African-American organizations had threatened legal action and protests. So the city officials discarded the test.

The firefighters sued. The lead plaintiff was Frank Ricci, an 11 year veteran.

Both the District Court and the Second Circuit Appeals Court ruled in favor of the city. Sotomayor was on of the three members of the Second Circuit who ruled in favor of the city. She also was one of the judges who denied a request for the whole Second Circuit to hear the case.

The Supreme Court subsequently heard the appeal by Ricci et al and reversed the other courts. Justice Ginsburg, who herself had questionable racial hiring practices, said that if the white firemen were promoted then the city’s blacks would be served by an all white fire department as it was in the days of segregation.

What Justice Ginsburg did not explain is what exactly the criteria are for a protected class of citizens. Are only blacks and women protected? What about Jews? They were discriminated against in the past.

Indeed, what about Frank Ricci’s ancestors? He’s of Italian descent.
Italians were discriminated against.

When my grandfather immigrated to the United States from Sicily one hundred years ago, he obtained a job at the Stetson Hat factory in the Kensington section of Philadelphia. This is the same company famous for its cowboy hats.

The reason he got the job was that being a “hatter” was not considered work suitable for a “white man.” It was dangerous work in the laborers were exposed to mercury poisoning. Many were afflicted by it - this how the expression “mad as a hatter” came about.

So certainly Italian-Americans, Jews, Native-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Japanese-Americans, Chinese-Americans, all sorts of immigrant ethnic and racial groups can be considered victims of one sort or another.

So why do liberals favor only certain racial/ethnic groups and genders?

Another manifestation was the attacking of Mr. Ricci by Sotomayor’s supporters.

As this case became an issue because of Sotomayor’s Supreme Court nomination, leftwing Democrats do what they always do – the began a smear campaign against a working class guy who just wanted to see justice done.

Democrats – who love to say they represent the average American – will vilify, slander and do anything they can to ruin anyone who gets in their way. The more “average” the person is, the easier it is to assassinate the person’s character.

The People for the American Way was anything but doing something the American way. Reports were that they urged newspapers to look into Mr. Ricci past employment history to find a controversial ruling.

The whole purpose was to discredit Ricci. They did not want to argue on the merits of the case or whether Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy was appropriate.

No, just engage in ad hominems.
The leftwing of the Democratic Party, the controlling faction of the party, did not distinguish itself in its behavior through the Sotomayor hearings. It revealed its true nature.

Predictably, Republicans refused to call attention to this.

Mike can be contacted at

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

What a Difference a Protest Makes

Conservatives Oblivious to Activism's Importance
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tea Time Blog

Every time an anti-abortion protester disrupted the confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayor they were removed immediately from the chambers. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D – Vt., the chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, which is conducting the hearing, is very efficient in keeping order.

Then again, maybe efficiency and the maintenance of order is not what this is all about.

After all, when antiwar protesters disrupted a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing about the Iraq war in 2007, the committee chairman Russ Feingold, D. - Wisc., empathized with the protesters who were from an organization whose members wear pink costumes ( I know the name of the group I just do not want to mention them).

Feingold said, “I strongly support your First Amendment right to free speech.”

Although the police were nearby, the protesters were never removed from the chambers. They repeatedly applauded Feingold’s vitriolic criticism of the Bush administration. Despite repeated “warnings,” they never stopped disrupting the hearing and they were never removed.

Ironically, the only antiwar protesters who were arrested that day were those who staged one outside of Hillary Clinton’s office. Apparently, protesting Democratic Party legislators is not considered an exercise of the First Amendment.

Even protesters who vandalized the steps of the U.S. Capitol Building were never arrested. This prompted at least one Republican to write to the Capitol Police chief expressing his dismay.

Nothing was done.

The coordination between these alleged “grassroots protesters” or “community activist” groups and the Democratic Party is a well known “secret.” The coordination between them and the media should be well known, however, it is not. This is primarily because of the lack of an opposing political party in the United States.

Last March 30, when I broke the news that the New York Times spiked information they had about the coordination between ACORN and the Obama campaign, the story went national that evening.

(The Times did not use the information they received from an ACORN whistleblower because they thought it would be a “game changer.” Here is the link:

Fox News Channel ran with it. The network featured it on its banner all evening. I was that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity mentioned it on their shows.

I was amazed at the excitement my article generated.

A few months earlier I reported, after watching a Fox News broadcast, about members of the New Black Panther Party of Philadelphia intimidating voters at a polling place in North Philadelphia.

I later interviewed the McCain campaign lawyer, Lovida Coleman, about the incident. She told me one of the New Black Panthers was credentialed by the Democratic Party as a poll watcher. She also said he told her he was a Democratic Party committeeman.

During the press conference she held after my interview, I mentioned to her that the New Black Panther Party was considered a hate group by the liberal Southern Poverty Law Center.

She was unaware of this.

This is the problem with the Republican Party as an opposition group. They are totally clueless. They only seem to get motivated about taxes. Other than that, Republican politicians are fairly dormant.

This is why the Democrats can permit protesters to disrupt hearings, the mainstream media can continue to provide admiring reportage of these protesters and there are no consequences to them. The Republicans are either apathetic or oblivious.

Conservatives need to become cognizant of what is occurring and take countermeasures. There are some things they can do immediately.

First, conservative politicians and activists need to patronize and promote conservative media outlets.

As a journalist, I would make every effort to report about conservative groups. I felt they were not receiving the same media attention the liberal groups did. I wanted to provide some balance.

Occasionally, I received cooperation from these groups. Occasionally!

The same cannot be said about Republican politicians. The Republican Party was worse. I received little or no cooperation from them.

Like conservative groups, I wanted to give Republican politicians the access I felt they were not getting from the mainstream established media. The only outlet they had was talk radio. I wanted them to tell their side of the story.

When I approached them, they acted as if they had stage fright. When they did consent to be interviewed, they displayed very little knowledge of the subject matter. For example, when I asked the ranking Republican on the committee that heard the testimony about ACORN and the NY Times, he seemed as if he did not know about it.

Finally, conservatives need to promote conservative media. They like to complain about the liberal mainstream media, yet they do nothing to promote conservative media.

For example, when Rick Santorum was guest hosting for Bill Bennett several weeks ago, he complained that the liberals controlled the media. Yet, not once did Mr. Santorum mention my paper – even though he was well aware of its existence.

Liberal groups and Democrat politicians are much more cooperative than their conservative/Republican counterparts. They are, as a whole, much more media savvy.

Republicans should recall the words of their party’s icon, President Abraham Lincoln. He knew the importance of public relations.
He once said, “Public opinion in this country is everything.”

His ideological descendants have obviously forgotten this. The Democrats have not.

Mike can be contacted at

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Democrats Supreme Doublespeak

The Party’s Racial Hypocrisy Continues
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tea Time Blog

Listening to the opening statements by the Democrat Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee during the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, it seems that the only qualifications she brings to the court is her “compelling story,” that she is a the third woman to be nominated and that she is a Latina.

One by one, each of the Democrats mentioned these characteristics as the reasons why she should be appointed. Ms. Sotomayor mentioned them as well in her opening statement.

Yet, the “compelling story” of Clarence Thomas was not considered an attribute by Democrats. In fact, Justice Thomas was the victim of the most reprehensible character assassination of all time. It exceeded the smear campaign conducted by Democrats and the liberal media against Robert Bork.

Furthermore, Alberto Gonzalez’ and Miguel Estrada’s Hispanic heritage was not considered an asset by Democrats when they were nominated for offices by President Bush. Indeed, Democrats were panicked that they had been nominated because they did not want Republicans to groom one of them for the Supreme Court.

Despite all this Democrats now want race and humble origins to be qualifications for their nominee when they were not for Republicans.

Worst of all, Democrats bray Republicans are questioning Sotomayor’s apparent racism. It is the supreme irony that the Democrats are proclaiming that race should not be an issue with the Sotomayor appointment. It is ironic that they are trying to minimize her role in the Ricci case.

The only reason Sotomayor was nominated was because of her race. Race is part and parcel and an integral part of Democratic Party politics. They pander to races and ethnic groups to get votes. They slander anyone who disagrees with them as a racist.

Predictably, Democrats have played the race card against Sen. Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary committee. They are calling him a racist because he once said that the NAACP was a communist inspired organization (FDR once said something similar about black newspapers).

Why a comment by Jeff Sessions about the NAACP being communist is racist, yet Sonia Sotomayor’s comments about Latina’s being superior to white males defies reason.

If Sonia Sotomayor is a racist she would not be the first Democrat to be such. The party has a history of harboring racists.

The fact is the Democratic Party was the party that defended segregation and slavery always uses the racism smear (along with sexism). As much as they try to hide this they cannot.

Perhaps the preeminent expert on the Democrats’ racist history is Frances Rice of the National Black Republican Association. This African-American woman was a Lieutenant Colonel in the military. She co-founded the National Black Republican Association (NBRA) in 2005 to call attention to the bonds between African-Americans and Republican Party.

She wrote an essay titled the Democratic Party Owes Blacks an Apology. She notes:

· The Democratic Party enacted fugitive slave laws to keep blacks from escaping from plantations; instigated the 1856 “Dred Scott v. Standford” decision which legally classified blacks as property; passed the Missouri Compromise to spread slavery into 50% of the new Northern states; and passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act designed to spread slavery into all of the new states.

· Southern Democrats passed discriminatory Black Codes in 1865 to suppress, restrict, and deny blacks the same privileges as whites.

· In 1866, the Ku Klux Klan was started by Democrats to lynch and terrorize Republicans, black and white, and the Ku Klux Klan became the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party
· Democrats passed discriminatory Jim Crow Laws in 1875 ( Republicans passed the 1875 Civil Rights Act

· The so-called “Dixiecrats” remained Democrats and did not migrate to the Republican Party

· the Democratic Party supported the Topeka, Kansas school board in
the 1954 “Brown v. Topeka Board of Education

· Roosevelt banned black American newspapers from the military because he was convinced the newspapers were communists. (What was that about Sessions?)

· It was the Democrats who tried to prevent the Civil Rights Acts of the 20th century from passage.

Meanwhile Republicans, who routinely labeled as racist, have the exact opposite history. Even now the trend in academia and political circles is to tar Republicans as racist. Yet this myth has been debunked.

An authority on the Republican Party’s racial history is University of Virginia political science professor Gerard Alexander. He wrote a 2004 book review titled The Myth of the Racist Republicans.

Mr. Alexander wrote “…the GOP finally became the region's dominant party in the least racist phase of the South's entire history, and it got that way by attracting most of its votes from the region's growing and confident communities—not its declining and fearful ones. The myth's shrillest proponents are as reluctant to admit this as they are to concede that most Republicans genuinely believe that a color-blind society lies down the road of individual choice and dynamic change, not down the road of state regulation and unequal treatment before the law. The truly tenacious prejudices here are the mythmakers.”

Maybe this is why the Democrats are so obsessed with race. They have a more than 200 year history of slavery, racism and segregation for which to atone.

Mike can be contacted at

Monday, July 13, 2009

Liberals’ Unenviable Track Record

Why Do We Keep Believing Them?
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tea Time Blog

Why anyone would believe that liberals would be able to solve the current American crisis is beyond reason. They have consistently made claims that have proven to be either incorrect or outright falsehoods.

These were not minor issues either. The erroneous policies they advocated, the mistaken predictions they made, were of major importance.

So there is no reason Americans should think that they can solve the problems of healthcare, the economy, education et al.

Here are just a few examples prognostications and pronouncements by leftists:

Walter Duranty - This Pulitzer Prize recipient was a New York Times Moscow bureau chief. He did not report that Stalin was exterminating seven to ten million Ukrainian men, women and children. Despite an independent 2003 inquiry by the Times that indicated his reporting was merely Soviet propaganda.

Sydney Schanberg - another NY Times Pulitzer Prize winner, he said that SE Asia would be better off with America gone and the communists in control of the government. He wrote a famous dispatch for the NY Times on April 13, 1975, a week before the communists conquered Cambodia and implemented a holocaust of extraordinary size, “for the ordinary people of Indochina…it is difficult to imagine how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone.”

Anthony Lewis - This NY Times columnist also predicted that there would be no mass slaughter in Cambodia. He wrote, “Some will find the whole bloodbath debate unreal. What future possibility could be more terrible than the reality of what is happening in Cambodia now?

Noam Chomsky – this icon of the left went one step further than his liberal brethren. He not only said there would not be a Cambodian genocide he denied there was even after the proof was incontrovertible.

Senator Ted Kennedy - The obligatory references to his swimming or driving acumen will not be made. No, all that is necessary is to note that Senator Kennedy proclaimed during a Senate speech that if President Reagan deployed Pershing missiles in European countries World War III would begin.

Rep. Tip O'Neill - Another famous Massachusetts Democrat was Speaker of the House during the Reagan administration. According to a review of the memoirs of the Soviet Ambassador to the US, Anatoly Dobrynin, O’Neill told Dobrynin that Ronald Reagan's reelection would be catastrophic: “Reagan will give vent to his primitive instincts . . . probably put us on the verge of a major armed conflict. He is a dangerous man.”

Attorney General Ramsey Clark - before he became famous as a defender of Saddam Hussein, Clark was the leader of the movement to rehabilitate rather than imprison criminals. He said that long criminal sentences were the result of societal vengeance and do not prevent crime. As America later learned this false.

Judge David Bazelon – like Clark he was one of the leaders of the “hug-a-thug movement.

John Kenneth Galbraith – this famous economist once said that General Motors is “large enough to control its markets.” He implied that American corporations were invulnerable.

These are just few examples of the sagacity of liberals. There are more.
What they all have in common is the absolute security of their own intellectual and moral superiority and that they were absolutely wrong.

Given their history why do we keep electing them?

Mike can be contacted at

Friday, July 10, 2009

Sarah, Sarah, Storms Are Brewing in Your Eyes

By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tea Time Blog

You knew that when David Letterman had the temerity to gratuitously and vulgarly insult her daughter, Sarah Palin was not going to react like a Bob Michel Republican.

(He was the former House minority leader who had this terrible habit of smiling after a gratuitous slur was made against Republicans by one of the House Democrats. As W. James Antle III, wrote a year ago in the American Spectator - “Bob Michel Republicans …are happy being in the minority.”)

Sarah Palin was not going to take Letterman’s abuses like Bill O’Reilly did when he appeared on Letterman’s show.

(During a 2006 Letterman told him, “about 60 percent of what you say is crap.” During a recent appearance Letterman told him “I think of you as a goon.” O’Reilly’s responses exhibited none of the feistiness for which he is known.)

Sarah has provided the paradigm for them.

Despite all the Republican “strategists” who told her to keep quiet, Palin was not going to let this pass. She was not going to play second banana as Sen. Orrin Hatch, Rep. - Utah does when Sen. Pat Leahy, Dem. – Vt. makes some snide comment.

No, Palin demonstrated she is not going to be a punching bag for liberal Democrats.

It does not matter whether they are media liberals, liberal entertainers, liberal community organizers, liberal Democrats or communists. She went after Letterman like any mother would have. She was not going to let a career in politics interfere with avenging a disgraceful attack on her innocent defenseless daughter.

Sarah Palin showed the courage and determine that so many Republicans, especially those in the Senate, have heretofore lacked. They rarely if ever respond to insults by liberal Democrats.

This is why liberal Democrats are so desperate to destroy her. She is intrepid and resolute.

This is also why many Republicans are standing on the sideline and not objecting to it. Sarah Palin holds a mirror to their pusillanimity. She is William Wallace and they are the Scottish nobles.

She could be the Joan of Arc for the Republican Party (sans burning at the stake of course).

What is even worse for her enemies is that Sarah Palin is intelligent.

I know. I had the opportunity to speak with her while she was at Independence Hall last November for the Governor’s Association conference. She impressed me as being bright, articulate with a command of the facts that most of her peers do not have.

She is certainly light years ahead of Rod Blagojevich, a man for whom the Hyde Park sophisticates of the Democratic Party voted.

She was the star of the show then. All the attention was focused on her during the Independence Hall media conference.

Perhaps this is why New York City Republicans like Peggy Noonan cannot stand her. Noonan’s dislike for Palin is palpable and grotesque. She has been one of the most vitriolic of Palin’s critics.

This is understandable. Noonan has become one of the Manhattan elite. She launched a website for women with Lesley Stahl that features contributors like Whoopi Goldberg. She also endorsed Obama in 2008. This was 180 degrees from the day she mocked Obama’s election as Illinois senator in 2004.

(Unlike Noonan, I said Obama was a rising star in the party. I wrote in August 2004, after watching his convention speech, “If the Democratic National Convention failed to produce a bounce for John Kerry, the same cannot be said of Illinois State Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic Party’s candidate for United States Senator from Illinois. While this rising star in the Democratic Party spouted some conservative themes during his speech, the rhetoric may be deceptive… Obama is very liberal.”)

So it is quite understandable why Manhattan Republicans like Noonan do not like Palin. She does not fit their societal mold.

Palin seems to be part of a growing core of Republicans – especially women – who are as mad as hell and ain’t gonna take it anymore.

Liz Cheney is part of this group. So are Michele Bachman, Marsha Blackburn, Rosario Marin, Heather Wilson, Renee Amore and Mary Fallin.

Blackburn, Marin, Bachman, Fallin and Wilson, along with Carly Fiorina and Renee Amore all publicly defended Palin after the smear campaign against her began immediately following her nomination.

For the Peggy Noonans among you, who notice such things, please note:

· Rosario Marin is a Mexican-American, who was the Treasurer of the U.S. during the Bush administration. (Take that Sotomayor.)

· Renee Amore, is African-American and the deputy chairman of the Pennsylvania Republican Party.

· Carly Fiorina was the CEO of a Fortune 500 corporation

· Heather Wilson was a Rhodes scholar who graduated with honors from the Air Force Academy

Not one of these intelligent, accomplished (and, yes, attractive women) who are working mothers, ever doubted for a second Sarah Palin’s intellect or ability!

Who knows maybe Sarah Palin’s new role will be to join forces with these forceful, talented women and provide some spine and direction to the Republican Party. Maybe they can provide what is desperately needed in the party. There is no question the men have not been able to figure it out.

Maybe Palin is headed to emulate another Jefferson Starship song, the 1987 hit: “Nothing's Gonna Stop Us Now."

Michael P. Tremoglie can be contacted at

[1] Lyrics by Peter and Ina Wolf for Jefferson Starship’s “Sara” 1985

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Who Woulda Thunkit?
I’m Really a Liberal
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie’s Tea Time

I just realized I am a liberal.

This revelation came to me after reviewing the issues a certain liberal candidate for office outlined. On every issue she listed I found I was in concurrence.

I think you too will come to the same conclusion. Here is the list of the issues (in bold and italicized):


You bet! I completely concur. I think people should have the choice to send their kids to parochial or private schools just like many public school teachers, Democratic Party politicians, feminists, and New York Times’ journalists do.

Anti-death penalty?

Absolutely! Once again total concord. I don't think a baby in its ninth month should be executed.

Civil unions?

Sure thing! I think all unions should be civil. There would probably be less divorces if they were. Besides less divorces means less welfare programs.

Gun control?

Indubitably! I know one definitely needs to control the gun when shooting an intruder.

Redefine families?

You got it, dude. The only time northeastern liberal newspapers use the word family is to describe the mob.

Eliminating prayer in schools?

Forgettabout it. If kids studied like they should they wouldn't have to pray before exams.

Separation of church and state?

Absolutely!!! As it is right now, religious institutions – especially parochial and other religious schools - are subsidizing public school districts across the country. If all those students in religious schools were sent to public school, every school district in the United States would have to triple their taxes to pay for the influx. Parents of students who go to private religious and parochial schools are subsidizing school districts and therefore are paying an indirect tax. This is unconstitutional!

Freedom of dissent?

Right on! Conservative students and faculty should be allowed to express their beliefs.

Affirmative action?

No doubt about it. The ACLU, NOW, and the Sierra Club should hire black executive directors immediately. The ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC news anchors, as well as the Managing Editors of the New York Times, Washington Post and Vanity Fair should be replaced by blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and women.

No limits for lawsuits?

You know it. I think lawyers should be sued every time they file one of those frivolous lawsuits.

Rehabilitation for criminals?

Unquestionably! I think judges who place dangerous criminals on probation should be sent to a prison facility to be rehabilitated.

Equal Rights for Women?

Undeniably, women should have to prove that they should be awarded custody of kids in divorce cases just like men do.

More social programs?

Certainly! The greatest social program a nation can provide for its citizens is to keep them safe and free.

It is amazing that all this time I was a liberal and did not know it. Realizing what we have in common, I want to invite my fellow liberals to join me and work together to make this country truly a place where everyone can thrive and be free.

Michael P. Tremoglie can be contacted at

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Maybe Tomorrow

Song Fitting Expression of Jackson Spectacle
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tea Time Blog

A fitting commentary to the spectacle which the demise of singer Michael Jackson became can be found in the title of my favorite Jackson 5 song, “Maybe Tomorrow.” It is appropriate because if anything comes from this incident it is that – in the future - Americans will stop the deification of entertainers.

The mainstream media, so anxious to televise those killed in action in Iraq arriving at Dover Air Force based during the Bush years, lately have done nothing to acknowledge the sacrifices of the defenders of our liberties. Yet, they provided unlimited reporting about a man who sang songs.

Maybe tomorrow that will change.

The exploitation of this event is crass and disgusting even by Hollywood standards. Al Sharpton, as Juan Williams noted on the Fox News Channel, had little contact with Jackson. Yet, Reverend Al shows up to get some prime camera time – and presumably some donations.

Maybe tomorrow that will change.

The United States House of Representatives held a moment of silence for Michael Jackson. They also passed a resolution recognizing his accomplishments. President Obama sent his condolences.

Yet, Ed McMahon, who died a few days before, was a World War II aviator and also served in Korea. The man risked his life to defend his country and did just as much, if not more, charitable work than Jackson ever did. Nobody in the White House or Capitol Hill said a thing about Ed McMahon.

Maybe tomorrow that will change.

The aunt of a soldier killed in Afghanistan complained that her nephew’s death was not noticed at all. He was killed in action the same day Jackson died.

Maybe tomorrow that will change.

Of all the politicians who tripped over themselves to be involved with L’Affair Jackson, only Alaska Gov, Sarah Palin issued a statement during this whole period expressing sorrow – not about Jackson - but about soldiers, who were stationed in Alaska, recently killed in Afghanistan.

Maybe tomorrow that will change.

For the next several days there will be hagiographies about Jackson. His fame will be exploited by news stations, magazines and anybody who can remotely cash in on slaking the thirst of a public that is seemingly conditioned to revere all entertainers.

The good news is that this is starting to change now. Many Americans are realizing that Michael Jackson was a good singer – a great singer, a great entertainer. However that is all that he was.

Maybe tomorrow we will honor those who represent the apogee of humanity: the altruistic, the heroic, and the selfless.

Michael P. Tremoglie can be contacted at

Tuesday, July 7, 2009


No Wonder Republicans Get Hammered During Elections

By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie’s Tea Time

Today, the Senate is holding hearings about the college football Bowl Championship Series (BCS). Sen. Orrin Hatch, R- UT, is replicating a hearing about the BCS that was held earlier this year, in the House, by his fellow Republican, Texas Congressman Rep. Joe Barton.

Hatch and Barton are not concerned with terrorism, war, famine, plague, unemployment, crime, the government usurpation of the automobile industry and the planned usurpation of the health field, as well as North Korea, etc.
No, they want to enact laws forcing a playoff in college football.

What is even more incredible is that this is being advocated by politicians who oppose government intervention! The putatively anti-big government conservatives, Barton and Hatch, want to pass a law interfering with free market capitalism.

No wonder Republicans are getting hammered in the elections.

Such phony devotion to free-market principles and smaller government is easily discerned by an electorate tired of politicians not investigating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

This is the salient point here. This is a game – played by unpaid college kids. Before politicians invoke anti-trust regulations, remember who is involved here.

Before adding a new government acronym to the lexicon (can’t you just see it now “President Obama just announced the appointment of Barney Frank, Commissioner of the Federal College Football Playoff Administration”) remember who and what we are talking about.

I found a 25 year old Television Guide piece about the approaching college football bowl games on television. The writer said there were too many bowl games (16 then as opposed to the 34 now). He also said there should be a playoff.

Well, there is a playoff system in major college football. It involves the top two seeded teams.

Now you may say this is not much of a playoff, that it is not fair. You may ask why it is not like the NCAA basketball tournament – which provides 64 teams a chance at the championship.

Those 64 tournament teams are seeded – just as the two major college football teams are. When one considers that the lowest seed ever to be champion was Villanova - the #8 seed in 1985 – why should there be 64 teams?

Think about it – in 70 years - only one team not in the top five seeds ever won the college basketball championship.

Now some people (especially sportswriters many of whom are as doctrinaire leftist as their newsroom brethren) say the bowl games are about greed. They postulate the only reason there is no playoff is because the bowl games will lose money.

There is no greed in the NCAA tournament? How ingenuous can you get.

The tournament started in 1939 (37 years after the first bowl game). It consisted of only eight teams then. It expanded to 64 in 1985.

Why do you think that was? Money!
Before “March Madness” came along (the advertising moniker television networks gave the tournament) the public was not very concerned about who the college basketball champion was. Indeed, most teams played in the NIT (National Invitation Tournament) until about the '70's.
Do you think the NCAA makes more or less money because of “March Madness?”
The same thing can be said about small college football. No one was interested whether Podunk State, Coal Cracker College or Sunset Beach U. was the number one small college team in the nation.

However, make small college teams determine their champion by a playoff and now there is some suspense for a TV audience. Now networks can sell commercial airtime.

The major college teams do not need to generate interest. They do not need the gimmick of a “playoff.” They already have an audience.

If the small college football teams, college basketball teams or college baseball teams want a playoff that is their business. Just do not say it is for righteous reasons.

Let major college football alone.

If Widget Inc. - maker of the best paper fasteners in the world - wants to sponsor the Paper Clip Bowl; the city of Osh Kosh, Wisconsin wants to host it; Middle Tennessee State and North Dakota State want to play in it; ESPN wants to broadcast it; and a few million people want to watch it; why should the federal government, the courts, or the sportswriters of America complain?

The current system is fine. The games – for the most part – are fun to watch. Players get a chance to be on a national stage – for most their only chance to do so.

Even the marching bands have an opportunity to showcase their talents, their efforts work and their desire.

The bowl games are a ball for these kids. Don’t let the adults ruin it.

Meanwhile, Congressman Barton, should direct his energies to finding out why the Department of Justice dropped its voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party.

Michael P. Tremoglie can be contacted at

Monday, July 6, 2009

Justice Ginsburg’s Ricci Racial Hypocrisy

Justice Ginsburg’s Racial Hypocrisy in Ricci
She Never Met a Black She’d Hire in 1993
By Michael P. Tremoglie
Tremoglie’s Tea Time Blog

During Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s July 1993 confirmation hearing, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R- Utah, asked her about racist hiring practices. He wanted to know if she thought that an employer, located in a city that was predominantly black, would be suspected of racism if there were no blacks on the payroll. Judge Ginsburg replied it would be.

Hatch then reminded her that her own payroll did not include blacks even though she was in a city with a majority black population. He quickly followed up by saying he did not suspect her of racism.

Ginsburg, who was clearly flabbergasted that her hypocrisy had been exposed, tried to be glib. She replied, “ …if you confirm me to this job, my attractiveness to black candidates is going to improve.”

Now, 16 years later, the blatant hypocrisy she revealed then was displayed once more in her dissent in the Ricci v. DeStefano case. This case involved a discrimination lawsuit by 18 New Haven Connecticut firefighters, 17 whites and one Hispanic. They had all passed their promotional test. Yet, the city invalidated the test results because few blacks had passed.

The lower courts concurred that the city should have issued a new test. However, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that this violated the rights of those who were not promoted. Ginsburg said their rights wre not violated.

This is outrageous to many on various levels. However, the most contemptible flaw is her patently hypocritical reasoning.

The same argument Justice Ginsburg used to suggest that the New Haven Fire Department might be engaged in racist hiring and promoting practices could easily have been applied to her own hiring and promoting practices.

Justice Ginsburg wrote in her Ricci dissent, “…a city in which African-Americans and Hispanics account for nearly 60 percent of the population, must today be served—as it was in the days of undisguised discrimination—by a fire department in which members of racial and ethnic minorities are rarely seen in command positions. In arriving at its order, the Court barely acknowledges the pathmarking decision in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424 (1971), which explained the centrality of the disparate-impact concept to effective enforcement of Title VII.”

Justice Ginsburg clearly believes that the racial makeup of the city’s workforce must reflect that of the city itself. If it is not, she claims that is a priori evidence of racism. Yet, her argument is not applicable to herself.

Her assertion that the workforce of the New Haven fire department - or any employer for that matter – must reflect the same, or near the same, racial proportions of the geographical workforce in which the employer operates is known as the “disparity” argument.

The argument goes like this: if the population of a city is 50 percent African-American, then the percentage of an employer’s workforce must also be approximately the same, otherwise the employer must be exercising racism in its hiring procedure.

This “disparity” or “disproportionality” argument has been used to “prove” racism in everything from criminal sentencing to hiring practices to charitable contributions to welfare. It is the reasoning for revising crack cocaine laws.

Later in her dissent Ginsburg tries to deny the racial disparity argument. Using classic Orwellian doublespeak she writes, “an employer could not cast aside a selection method based on a statistical disparity alone." (Emphasis added)

Well then why is she sanctioning the city’s decision to cast aside the test because of racial disparity?

This is classic insult your intelligence rationale. It is typical of liberals.

After listening to, as well as, reading Ginsburg’s opinions about racist hiring practices and also reading the reportage about Ricci v. DeStefano that followed in such liberal journals like the New York Times, Philadelphia Inquirer and others, one cannot help remember the George Orwell’s words in his May 1945 treatise “Notes on Nationalism.”

Mr. Orwell wrote, “One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.”

Sunday, July 5, 2009

Why Leftist Thought is Predominant in America.

“YOU LEFT THE FIELD OF IDEAS to people like me to be corrupted, while you went off to make money,” said Ellsworth Toohey to his former boss Gale Wynand in Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead. The Toohey character represents the liberal intelligentsia. Wynand represents the Rockefeller Republican.

This one statement by a fictional character articulates the present social, political, and cultural state of America. The liberal intelligentsia is predominant.

A few years ago a history professor published a book that received a prestigious award. The book claimed Americans did not own many guns in the early years of the republic and therefore the Second Amendment is not for individuals. This was well received by gun control zealots, which probably accounted for its acceptance and praise in literary, media and academic circles.

However, there was one problem. The claim was not true. Eventually, the prize was rescinded and the author resigned from his position as a professor.

How could such a book promoting abolition of gun ownership be lauded, while scientific studies and books such as John Lott’s "More Guns, Less Crime" are immediately demeaned?

Because the field of ideas has been deserted by the American right.

For about twenty years, leftwing academicians met at the annual Socialists Scholars Conference. The 2002 event brought in New York City Councilman and former Black Panther Charles Barron, Michael Cohen, editor of the Green Party USA newspaper, Mumia Abu Jamal attorney Leonard Weinglass, and Edward Said.

Michael Moore, Al Sharpton, Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, and Ron Dellums, one-time Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, as well as New York Congressmen Jerrold Nadler and Major Owens have attended past conferences.

There is nothing inappropriate about this. All ideas are welcome in America – although one must wonder if a congressman, famous filmmaker, or distinguished college professor attended say a Fascist or Nazi Scholars Conference what would happen.

However, it is emblematic of the influence of leftwing ideology in modern America. The pervasiveness of socialist thought among scholars is nothing new. The Intercollegiate Socialist Society (ISS) was established in New York in 1905 by some very famous scholars.

Among them were Jack London, Upton Sinclair, and Clarence Darrow. Each of these men were very influential in American society then and now.

Indeed, socialist ideas and propaganda from a hundred years ago is still disseminated today.

American socialist icon Eugene Debs said during a 1918 speech, “And here let me emphasize the fact -- and it cannot be repeated too often -- that the working class who fight all the battles, the working class who make the supreme sacrifices…have never yet had a voice in either declaring war or making peace. It is the ruling class that …alone declare war and they alone make peace.
They themselves did not go to war anymore than the modern feudal lords, the barons of Wall Street go to war…”

This claim has been repeated today, without knowing its origins, by journalists and politicians.
A 2004 Newsweek magazine article claimed, “American troops tend to be working-class or poor…”

New York Times journalist Chris Hedges ( an admitted socialist) said during a 2003 college commencement address, “(the soldiers he met in Iraq) joined the military because there were no job opportunities.”

Bill Maher remarked during a 2005 edition of his TV show that the military recruits the dregs of society.

The facts are quite different.

According to a Rand study of military enlistees, “…a high school senior was less likely to enlist, “The more months he’s been unemployed” and “If he has a low wage.”

The Defense Department’s own data states, “Practically all active duty and Selected Reserve enlisted …had a high school diploma or equivalent, well above civilian youth proportions …have higher cognitive aptitude than the civilian youth population…reading levels were higher in the enlisted military than in the non-military sector. FY 2001 …active duty enlisted …had a mean reading level typical of an 11th grade student whereas the mean for civilian youth was within the 10th grade range.”

Yet, socialist antiwar propaganda from a century ago survives today.

Another example of these anti-American falsehoods is that of blacks in the military during war.

General Pershing wrote in his book about World War I that African-Americans were being told that African-American troops were always given the most dangerous assignments, were sacrificed to save white troops, and were often left to die without medical attention, when in fact; at that point, black troops had not been in combat. Ironically, Pershing wrote, “It was not difficult to guess the origin of this sort of propaganda.”

This same propaganda was repeated by the liberals/leftists during the Vietnam War and all other wars since including Operation Iraqi Freedom.

During Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm in 1991, it was said African-Americans would be represented disproportionately among frontline units and casualties. However,

Representative Les Aspin, a Colorado Democrat and Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee stated, “The…Committee spent some considerable time on this [issue] and came to a rather surprising conclusion about it. It's not true.”

From the aforementioned Rand study, “…when compared to college graduates in the civilian workforce 21-49 years old (9 percent African American), African Americans are equitably represented in the officer ranks.”

The difference between the Vietnam War days and today is that then the media was pretty much in lockstep with leftism and the antiwar movement. Today there are alternatives.

Unfortunately, they seem to be limited to blogs like this one and talk radio. News organizations like the Fox News Channel, the Wall Street Journal also do not follow the liberal template. Other, smaller newspapers present the truth yet do not have much of an impact outside of their own regions.

Unquestionably, the leftists have corrupted the “field of ideas.” They have controlled the opinion shaping professions of the academy, the media, and the arts for a long time.

Unless more conservatives become members of what Robert Bork once called the “chattering classes,” America will become a totalitarian society. Public opinion, both foreign and domestic will turn against America.

The foreign policy of appeasement will continue to endanger America. If America does not defend liberty what nation will?

The idea that America must apologize for supposed transgressions - such as eliminating the threat of world communism – will continue erode America’s moral standing.

The idea of a socialist utopia will be an easy sell to those who know nothing other than that capitalism is evil.

Anti-Americanism will be an easy sell if all people know is that we had slaves without learning about the civil war or the abolition movement.

There is a saying that nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come and if conservatives do not respond, it could soon be the false, leftwing idea now taking root in our culture.

Saturday, July 4, 2009

An American Race

“I believe we are witnessing the beginning of a new race of men”
Anonymous British Officer after the Battle of Saratoga, 1777

This comment, made by a soldier now forgotten by history, was more prophetic and more significant than he probably realized at the time.

As prescient as he may have been, little could he have predicted the mass immigration to American shores that has taken place over the succeeding centuries.

Little could he have realized the beacon of hope and promise that America has represented to people from all four corners of the world. Little could he have realized how many different races, creeds, and colors would come to America.

However, come they did. They came for different reasons. They came to escape oppression of all forms; political, economic, religious. They came to seek better opportunities.

Some came, as we are painfully aware, under the cruelest circumstances imaginable. However, even they, as Thomas Sowell has stated, were the progenitors of people who enjoy the benefits of America. Indeed, people still immigrate to America from Africa.

As they arrived, they maintained their cultures, initially, and then absorbed the dominant Anglo-Saxon culture. Nevertheless, these cultures intermingled. These cultures borrowed from one another, they amalgamated, to form a distinctly, unique American culture. A unique race of people.

This fact is irrefutable. Examples of this "melting pot" abound.

Our art, our language, our music, and our literature evidence it. After all, what is Rock and Roll but a hybrid of African, and Scotch-Irish music. American English borrows freely from Yiddish, Italian, Spanish, Chinese and other languages. Our movie and literary heroes reflect the self-reliance of the Native Americans and the industry of Europeans, as well as the virtues of many other groups.

Our values, beliefs, and attitudes are those of a people who value freedom, who have experienced oppression, and eschew a monarchy. More than once you will hear a recent immigrant chastise a discontented American citizen by saying “You don't know how good you have it here!”

America has an express culture, a unique culture, one that is different than the sum of its parts. Our constituent cultures, initially Indian, Northern European, Southern European and African, have combined with various Asian cultures to form a new society.

This is the result of over two hundred years of the blending of the different immigrant groups. It is the result of the fusion of different cultures.

It is the concept expressed in the motto “E Pluribus Unum,” recommended by the artist, Pierre Eugène Du Simitière. He was a consultant to the committee Congress appointed on July 4, 1776 to design a seal for the United States of America.

A unique American culture, a guiding light, is an idea expressed in John Winthrop’s sermon in 1630. He said that the Massachusetts colony would be a “city upon a hill” to be observed by the whole world.

Yet, there are those that do not want this. They deride the concept of the melting pot. They disdain “E Pluribus Unum.” These people believe in the hyphenation of America. They speak about an America that is multicultural. They envision an America that is not a melting pot. Instead America is a tapestry where everyone maintains their individual ethnic identity.

This tapestry theory is the current dogma of the liberal intelligentsia. The notion that we are separate but equal was disavowed a generation ago. For some to maintain that we must retain our ethnic identities is absurd.

Tapestries become unwoven. Such a philosophy will only lead to the balkanization of America.

America was created by Anglo Saxon, Protestant males. Why is that wrong?

Yes, they excluded some people and indirectly sanctioned a horrendous practice. However, slavery was abolished - at great cost. The exculded were included. It took time for this to evolve. Yet, there is no other country in the world where so many different people live among each other and do so freely.

The Founding Fathers created a nation that has been a symbol of hope for the rest of the world. Why would so many people have sacrificed so much -indeed risked their lives - to come here if it were not so? Whatever its faults, in the context of the period, at that time in world history, those men created the greatest government in human history.

America is not united by a language, or by genes, or geography. What unites America is an idea. America is a race united by the idea of freedom: freedom to condemn or praise the government; freedom to pursue your fortune; freedom to worship as you please, or to not worship at all; freedom from government interference or tyranny; freedom from fear of foreign and domestic enemies.

There is - and should be - only one race in America, the American race.

This idea was recently reinforced by my nine year old Sicilian cousin Lorenzo. He loves American baseball. Unfortunately, there are no youth baseball leagues in Sicily, nor are there places to buy equipment.

My wife and I bought him a bat and ball so he can practice. His mother pitched to him while he took some swats at the ball. He did very well for someone who never batted before.

He looked at his mother and said, " I must have American blood in me."

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Single-Payer Fallacy

By Michael P. Tremoglie

The liberal intelligentsia loves to compare American politics and culture to Europeans for the purpose of illustrating what a backward people Americans are. Yet, the comparisons rarely are valid. More than likely they are fallacious.

Not too long ago, famed law professor Alan Dershowitz defended former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s scandalous affair with a prostitute by claiming that the incident would not even make the last pages of a European newspaper. Ergo, it was no big deal.

Similarly, advocates of socialized medicine like to say all other industrialized nations have a government run, single-payer health insurance plan and that eighty-seven nations cannot be wrong.

This ruse, commonly employed by advertisers, is known as ipse dixit. It is a fallacy by which the arguer uses the opinion of some supposed authority to validate their argument. Neither Dershowitz nor the socialized medicine advocates ever state why Europeans are experts on morals and healthcare.

What is even worse is that when such claims are made your average journalist or editor rarely bothers to examine the validity of the claim.

For example, if a journalist examined Dershowitz’s assertion about European politician’s sexual peccadilloes, he would learn it was not true. A British politician who used the same prostitution ring as Spitzer made front page news.

The same is true for socialized medicine.

Not every other industrialized nation has a single-payer health plan (The Netherlands, Germany, France, and Switzerland are some examples) and many are moving away from single payer plans (United Kingdom, Israel, and others).

I first began studying single-payer plans when I was the Director of Managed Care of Temple University Health Sciences Center. It was 1993 and Hillary Clinton had assembled her health care task force. One option being considered was a single-payer plan.

I listened to ardent proponents of single-payer and I also listened to Sen. David Durenberger of Minnesota, Dr. Paul Elwood, and Alain Enthoven, PhD, Professor of Economics, Stanford University. They were the members of the “Jackson Hole group.” This group conceived the idea of managed competition.

Initially, I considered a single-payer system a viable option. It seemed perfectly logical. However, after listening to those who advocated such a system, I realized that such a proposal was a specious one. Those who proposed this alternative seemed more intent using the issue as a vehicle to reshape society in their image rather than as a concern for the welfare of others.

The proponents of a single-payer system were dogmatic. They wrapped themselves in the cloak of morality. They pilloried insurance companies and hospitals. They condemned pharmaceutical firms. They talked about “patients not profits” as if insurance companies routinely and willingly send people to their demise to save a few dollars.

They will say the United States has de facto rationing for the poor - much as President Obama has said recently. They will imply that many Americans have beneficial medical procedures denied because of money.

I recall one particularly ethno-centric socialized medicine proponent comparing the USA to Germany. He said that the German physicians understand that healthcare is not a commercial enterprise. He claimed it is for the benefit of the people.

German physicians sound as if they are extremely altruistic. However, they are no more or less than American physicians. There are waiting lists for those who are enrolled in the several public “sickness funds” because German doctors get paid more for those who have private insurance.

Besides the German system has other problems. Inflationary costs are also impacting Germany.

Those who crusade for a single-payer system like to point to the Canada as the paradigm for the United States – it is far from it.

As part of my research of socialized medicine in 1993, I spoke with an administrator of the Province of Ontario's Health Insurance Directorate. He sent me articles that were supposed to illustrate the virtues of the Canadian system. Instead, much of the information concerned Canadians coming to America for healthcare.

One of the disadvantages of the Canadian system is that is based on prospective budgeting. This means that each year the government allocates a certain amount of money for hospital and physician services. If the funds are depleted before the fiscal year then the providers will either render free care or close.

It is not unusual for Canadian hospitals to temporarily cease operations or for Canadian doctors to go on strike. Yet, people like to portray the Canadian system as a panacea.

One feature about the Canadian system that is denied by the reformers is the waiting list for care by Canadians. The waiting list problem is so egregious that in June 2005 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a ruling in response to a lawsuit about waiting lists that the healthcare system has failed.

“Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," wrote Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin. Three of the seven justices wanted to declare the entire system unconstitutional.

Yet, waiting lists have been denied by those who want a single-payer system in America. During a 1993 Macneil-Lehrer Report, an advocate for single-payer said that waiting lists at Canadian hospitals were not true. Eleven years later, in 2004, this claim was repeated.

Yet, this was and is patently false. So much of a concern is there for the viability of the Canadian system that there was a major conference in September 13, 2004 to address the problem.

According to the August 18, 2004 editorial page of the Toronto Globe and Mail, Prime Minister Paul Martin wanted to reduce waiting time in five key areas.

An article by Murray Campbell, in the August 19, 2004 Globe and Mail, said the Saskatchewan Surgical Care Network, “a leader in wait-time assessments” has needed nearly two years to develop a framework that allows patients and doctors to know the length of queues…a common language had to be created so that …everybody understood what constituted an urgent operation.”

According to Peter Singer, Director of the University of Toronto’s Joint Centre for Bioethics (quote by the Globe and Mail), “The Western Canada Waiting List Project…is developing tools to manage waiting lists.”

The September 8, 2004 edition of the Toronto Star featured an article about how one Canadian citizen had to wait six months for initial consultation with a cardiologist.[1]

In 1989 the government of British Columbia contracted with hospitals in the state of Washington because of the waiting times for bypass surgery.[2]

According to Dr. Richard Davies, a cardiologist at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, writing in a 1999 Canadian Medical Association Journal about Canadian waiting lists said, “ In …Ontario …71 patients died while waiting for CABG (by-pass surgery), 121 were removed from the list permanently because they had become medically unfit for surgery, 211 were taken off the list temporarily (the usual reason for this is medical instability, in which case patients are often reinstated in a higher urgency category), 259 were removed from the list for unspecified reasons and 44 left the province and underwent CABG elsewhere.” [3]

As is usually the case with those Americans who advocate some sort of socialized system in this country, they are not providing the American public with the facts. If that is the case why is it that Dr. David Wonham, a Canadian cardiologist, implemented a program that refers Canadians to United States hospitals for cardiac care? Why is it that in October 1996 Canada’s largest province began to make arrangements to send pregnant women to the U.S. to get medical treatment?

If Canadian access to care is superior to the United States system then why is it that in 1990-91 the Canadian healthcare system paid over $250,000,000 for out of country healthcare? When I was in Quebec in 1999, a news report complained of the state of pediatric care in Quebec.

Writing for the National Center for Policy Analysis in February 2001, Toronto physician David Gratzner cited several examples of lack of access by Canadians.

In a March 1996 letter to the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Keith Martin, a Member of Parliament wrote, “To make matters worse, the federal government, the enforcer of the Canada Heath Act, has decreased transfer payments to the provinces (seven billion dollars for healthcare, welfare, and education in the last budget), while forbidding them from raising additional funds other than through increasing taxes. Indeed, a politically and economically unpalatable solution. Thus, in its zeal to uphold the Act the federal government has forced the provinces to ration healthcare, thereby withholding medically necessary treatments from sick Canadians. Furthermore, governments use the Act to prevent people from purchasing healthcare from private practitioners. This drives some patients down to the United States where over one billion dollars is spent annually for treatment withheld by our "best healthcare system in the world".

Dr. Martin’s figure of one billion dollars annually paid by Canada for healthcare in the United States is significant. If a nation like Canada with one tenth the population of the US spends a billion dollars a year outside of the country for its healthcare - where would United States citizens have to go-Mexico?

Single-payer advocates point out that life expectancy in Canada is greater than the United States. This is because there healthcare system is superior they claim.

Surely, it is a plausible thesis. One would think that mortality would be a good barometer. However, like most data that liberals use, one has to consider what the actual causal relationship of the data is.

Mortality just tells you life expectancy it does not state why. A CDC report indicated that the healthcare system only accounted for ten percent of the mortality rate in the United States. Lifestyle was a more significant factor in determining mortality in the U.S. according to the CDC.

However, the raison d’ etre of single-payer proponents is the uninsured in the United States. The figure of 45 million uninsured in the United Sates is proffered and liberals everywhere secure in their own ignorance repeat this factoid. There are two difficulties with this. First, uninsured numbers change periodically. Second, as is always the case with such data - it does not say why people are uninsured.

Young people for example generally do not concern themselves with things like life insurance, health insurance pensions and the like. They usually defer health insurance overage. How many uninsured chose simply to buy a more expensive care or home rather than insurance? I know people who think nothing of spending thousands of dollars at the casinos however, they will complain about their insurance premium.

It is time Americans realize they were being duped by single-payer proponents who act out of political ideology not medical necessity. Remember you read it here first because the mainstream media will not tell you this.

As Benjamin Franklin noted nearly two centuries ago, “A mutual change of necessities, the more free.. the more it flourishes. Most of the restraints put upon it.. seem to have been the project of particulars for their private interest under the pretense of public good. "

[1] ret fm w/s 9-8-04
[2] ret fm w/s 9-8-04
[3] ret fm w/s 9-8-04