CNN's Dobbs Problem Gets Bigger

After CNN President Jon Klein reportedly called Lou Dobbs' coverage of conspiracy theories about Obama's birth certificate a "legitimate" story on Friday (July 24), Media Matters for America President Eric Burns sent an email to its thousands of online activists asking for their help. They want to publicly pressure CNN to call off Lou Dobbs.

While Media Matters claims to be a watchdog group, they are actually a leftist organization with an agenda to use the MainStreamMedia to further a leftist agenda, while discrediting any media outlet that does not agree with that agenda.

In the email, Burns writes: "Klein's caving to Dobbs raises a serious, troubling question: Who is really calling the shots at CNN?"

You know how those guys at CNN are all after Obama!

Is Obama Destroying the Economy on Purpose?

Recently, Rush Limbaugh appeared on Greta Van Sustern's popular Fox News Program and accused Obama of destroying our economy on purpose. This isn't the first time this accusation has been leveled. Economist Jim Cramer has certainly implied the same. Author James Simpson has also leveled the accusation.

A pair of radical Columbia University professors by the name of Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Piven wrote an article published in 1966 that laid out what is now known as the Cloward-Piven Strategy, in which they advocate the destruction of capitalism in America by swelling the American government, and especially the welfare rolls, to the point of collapsing our economy, then implementing a socialist government that takes over private institutions. Cloward and Piven studied Saul Alinsky just like Hillary Clinton and Obama.

Simpson explains that Cloward and Piven inspired the creation of ACORN, which Obama worked for as a community organizer.

While Limbaugh, Simpson and others (including a number of blogs) have a compelling argument, I'm not sure if I'm ready to buy into the idea that Obama is destroying the economy on purpose. Not just yet, anyway. My gut feeling is that the guy genuinely believes in this leftists crap. That he really believes the economy will improve by taking over the auto industry, the banks and health care. He really believes what all democrats believe.

On the other hand, the leftist agenda isn't about making the economy better. It's about spreading around whatever wealth there is. The left doesn't really care whether we have a good economy or a bad economy. That's not the point in their view. The point is making things "fair". Taking whatever economic gains we make and giving it to those who will keep them in power. That's really the point.

I'd like to know your thoughts. Is Obama intentionally destroying the economy? Or is he simply following his leftist principles? Or both?

Who Is the Racist in the Gates Case?

Suppose two men wearing backpacks are seen forcing themselves into a home which has been empty of late, regardless of whether they were black, white or purple. If you were a neighbor, would you call the police? And if you were the responding officer, would you approach the situation with caution? After all, how many police officers are gunned down each year responding to similar scenarios?

Let's look at the situation from a different perspective:

Suppose you were in Gates' shoes. Only, suppose you were white. You locked yourself out of your house, and after being away for a while, you were breaking in. A neighbor sees you, and not recognize you as the owner, calls the police. The police respond, find you in the house and ask you some questions. Would you assume you are being profiled because of your race? Would you say, "What's your problem, haven't you seen a white man before?" And if you had become belligerent, and created a hostile situation, do you think the police officer is at fault?

No, this incident wasn't about race, until Gates, who "teaches" race relations, made it about race.

And that's really what this comes down to. "Professor" Gates pulled race into the issue and created a situation out of nothing. He has a stereotype of white policemen. He thinks they are all "out to get" black people.

Now, isn't that what defines racism?

It seems to me that Professor Gates (and Obama) have set race relations back many years. But as a professor of race relations, you would think Gates should know this.

Maybe he did.

After all, it's difficult to continually preach how the white man is keeping the black man down following an election in which "white America" elected a black president, while living in a state with a black governor and a town with a black mayor.

Which gives us something else to consider: Could Gates have staged the entire event? Would he have provoked the officer in order to gain publicity and to advance his stature as a victimized black man?

If so, I wouldn't be surprised if Gates writes a book on race relations and his "victimization" before this issue is off the front pages of the blogs.

Meeting For Those Who Favor ObamaCare

There was a meeting here in my home town yesterday. It was a meeting of taxpayers and small business owners who felt that they would be better off under ObamaCare.

It was a small meeting.

Poor, Poor Mr. Gates

I feel sorry for Mr. Gates. He has to endure an evening of humiliation in a police station and all he has to comfort himself are national notoriety; possibly millions of dollars from either the police or, indirectly, from his instant fame; and relevance. Let's face it: academic fields based on victim status like black studies must be struggling to stay hip.

Were the police were stupid for arresting Gates? They may have crossed the line. Perhaps. They should be able to take insults from spoiled, self-important academics in stride.

Nevertheless, the real stupidity was from Obama who, as the nations chief "law enforcement officer," sided against the police before he even knew any of the facts of the case. Obama's racism shows once again. When will the rest of America recognize it for what it is?

Quote of the Day

Today's Quote of the Day is from eric at tygrrrrrexpress. If you haven't read his analysis of Obama's speech, please do. It's accurate and funny at the same time. Here is the quote:

"For those who think I am always against President Obama, let me give credit where credit is due. His necktie was perfect. I think he uses a Windsor knot. Like his necktie, his words are contorted into a twisted shape that fits him perfectly but does not benefit anybody else."

Who Is Responsible For All Those Unnecessary Operations?

Last night during his national press conference, President Barack Obama maligned doctors as doing unnecessary operations based on greed, not the best interest of the patient. He said:

“Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that’s out there. … The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, ‘You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid’s tonsils out,’” Obama told a prime-time news conference.

The president added: “Now, that may be the right thing to do, but I’d rather have that doctor making those decisions just based on whether you really need your kid’s tonsils out or whether it might make more sense just to change — maybe they have allergies. Maybe they have something else that would make a difference.”

It’s interesting that President Obama discusses unnecessary operations as one of the causes of high health care costs. Do you know what the most often performed operation is in the United States? With heart disease being the number one killer in America, you might think it would be related to that, perhaps bypass surgery or angioplasty.

You might think tonsillectomies are responsible for a huge number of unnecessary surgeries, since the windbag in chief brought it up. You'd be wrong.

It’s cesarean section. In 1965, only 4.5 percent of children were delivered via c-section. Today, 31 percent are. That’s a huge increase for a procedure that was once reserved to emergency situations. And as the Los Angeles Times notes, it has resulted in “an explosion in medical bills, an increase in complications — and a reconsideration of the cesarean as a sometimes unnecessary risk.”

What is the reason for the increase? Is it greedy doctors looking for a new summer home? No, it’s something far worse.

John Edwards.

The now disgraced former Senator from North Carolina made his name, and his money, as a trial lawyer. In a 1985 case, he convinced a jury that a doctor’s negligence was responsible for a child’s cerebral palsy. He argued that had the doctor performed a c-section earlier, the girl would not have been disabled. He went so far as to channel the girl in court for the jury:

“I have to tell you right now — I didn’t plan to talk about this — right now I feel her, I feel her presence,” he said in his record-setting 1985 lawsuit on behalf of Jennifer Campbell, born brain-damaged after being deprived of oxygen during labor. “She’s inside me and she’s talking to you. . . . And this is what she says to you. She says, `I don’t ask for your pity. What I ask for is your strength. And I don’t ask for your sympathy, but I do ask for your courage.’ “

The jury awarded the plaintiff $6.5 million. The New York Times reports this verdict led to more lawsuits:

In the decade that followed, Mr. Edwards filed at least 20 similar lawsuits against doctors and hospitals in deliveries gone wrong, winning verdicts and settlements of more than $60 million, typically keeping about a third. As a politician he has spoken of these lawsuits with pride.

“I was more than just their lawyer,” Mr. Edwards said of his clients in a recent essay in Newsweek. “I cared about them. Their cause was my cause.”

The effect of his work has reached beyond those cases, and beyond his own income. Other lawyers have filed countless similar cases; just this week, a jury on Long Island returned a $112 million award. And doctors have responded by changing the way they deliver babies, often seeing a relatively minor anomaly on a fetal heart monitor as justification for an immediate Caesarean.

So what has been the result of the increase in Caesarean section births? Occurrences of cerebral palsy have “remained fairly stable” at about “1.5/1000 births.”

In fact, the incidence of CP seems to be increasing slightly with the increased survival rates of infants born before thirty-two weeks gestation.

Whether or not fetal heart rate monitoring during labor has led to a reduction in cerebral palsy has been researched extensively. The conclusion established by multiple scientific evidence is: Fetal heart rate monitoring during labor does not reduce rates of cerebral palsy, although it does increase the rate of cesarean section.

As the L.A. Times notes, they also lead to unnecessary costs:

As the No. 1 cause of hospital admissions, childbirth is a huge part of the nation’s $2.4-trillion annual healthcare expenditure, accounting in hospital charges alone for more than $79 billion.

Because the average uncomplicated cesarean runs about $4,500, nearly twice as much as a comparable vaginal birth, cesareans account for a disproportionate amount (45%) of delivery costs. Among privately insured patients, uncomplicated cesareans run about $13,000.

and:

The problem, experts say, is that the cesarean — delivery via uterine incision — exposes a woman to the risk of infection, blood clots and other serious problems. Cesareans also have been shown to increase premature births and the need for intensive care for newborns. Even without such complications, cesareans result in longer hospital stays.

If the president is really interested in reducing the occurrences of unnecessary operations, he doesn’t need to create the boogey-man of “greedy doctors.” Greedy doctors don’t remove body parts like tonsils. They implant body parts, like silicone breats. The real culprit here is the trial lawyer, who has helped create a medical world choosing procedures based on the CYA diagnosis method. However, the president’s speech last night was not critical of this, and didn’t emphasize tort reform.

A 2001 article from National Review explains why the president doesn’t see a need for tort reform:

An estimated 50 cents of every dollar awarded to tort plaintiffs gets eaten up by lawyers and courts-and a great deal of that money ends up benefiting Democratic candidates. Over the last decade, the legal profession has led all other groups in campaign contributions-giving a total of $357 million to federal candidates-and 70 percent of its cash goes to Democrats. The 56,000-member Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA) was the top PAC contributor to Democratic federal candidates in the last election cycle; the organization spent $2.6 million, 86 percent of which went to Democrats.

If he were serious about lower costs, this would be the cornerstone of his movement. Instead, he maligns “greedy doctors,” many of whom work 16 hours or more a day trying to help people, and lets the “greedy trial lawyers” off the hook. Remember that next time he accuses the Republicans of bowing down to special interests.