Friday, July 31, 2009

Blog Milestone

I'm traveling today. I'm in the "Mile High City" for the weekend. And while in the Mile High City, my blog has reached a Milestone. One Hundred followers.

So, I thought I'd take a break from the usual political post and make a few comments about my blog.

First, let me say that I don't like the word "followers." That's the word Google uses (Google runs "Blogger"). One of the blog I regularly visit made the point that the word "followers" makes us sound like a cult. I agree. I like the words "readers" or "visitors." Those seem more appropriate.

Of course, not all of my readers share my world-view or my opinions on many of the subjects that I talk about. Reading some of the blogs of those who have signed up as "followers," I wonder why they would visit here at all. A few have swallowed the liberal Kool-Aid. Others, like James' Muse, shares some views and not others. James, if you read this, while I often disagree with you, I value your posts. A lively discussion helps us all re-evaluate our positions to be certain we argue from a solid viewpoint.

I also want to thank the regular readers who post comments, many of whom are in agreement with my blog. The feedback helps encourage me to continue. I hate to list names, because I know I'll leave out some of you guys who regularly post here. You know who you are.

As many of you know some of my posts are copied and pasted from other sites and some are my own thoughts and words. Usually (but not always), if I copy and paste part or all of a post from another site, I'll tell you where it came from, and usually put a link. Posts from Fox News, the Associated Press and a handful of other sources don't always contain a link, but usually cite the reference.

I would estimate that about 50% of my posts are copied from elsewhere and 50% are my own thoughts.

One of my goal for the blog is to remain on the topic of politics. While I have other interests, if I make this blog about me and all of my interests, rather than staying on topic, I think it would make the blog less interesting for the readers that come here for the political angle. I can't imagine many people out there are interested in my personal life. Besides, I put that stuff on Facebook.

While my posts may appear at any time, I often find that I have time to research and write in the mornings, and more often than not, on weekdays. Weekends are for fun, although I occasionally find myself in the mood to post on a weekend, as well.

Where do my thoughts come from? Often from other blogs that I read. Chuck, Z, Red State, Red, LL, and a few others have provided me much food for thought. I don't often comment on your blogs, but rest assured, I read you blogs frequently. News stories on the web also provide much of the background for my posts. Occasionally, I'll catch Hannity, O'Reilly or one of the other commentary-type programs on TV that will give me a thought. I have to confess that I don't watch much TV, though. Especially Hannity. While I agree with him probably more than just about anyone else on TV, I just don't find his show that interesting. I also don't listen to talk radio. I just don't have much time for that.

I remember several months ago, a commenter accused me of simply spewing the Limbaugh talking points. (That might have been you, James, but I don't remember for sure.) I've never listened to Limbaugh. I've caught him a few times being interviewed on TV. I've also stopped by his website a handful of times. But I don't listen to his program. I'd probably like it, from what I've seen.

My political world view has been shaped by my father, a few teachers, my own personal reading and the thoughts of a few other friends and relatives.

I think it was Churchill who said "If you aren't a liberal at age 20, you have no heart. If you aren't a conservative at age 40, you have no brain."

I'll confess to having no heart.


Thursday, July 30, 2009

Question For the Day

The administration has declared the Generational Theft Act to be a success. The "stimulus package has worked," claimed the president last Wednesday, a sentiment echoed by his advisors and press room.

As of the end of July, slightly less than 10 percent of the total stimulus package will have been spent.

So here's the question: If the stimulus package worked and only ten percent has been spent, why run up the deficit any higher and spend the remaining 90 percent? If this is a real stimulus, and not pork, earmarks and political payback, the job is done! Stop spending! On the other hand, if this is not a real stimulus package; if it is, indeed as many of us suspect, simply a liberal christmas catalog ... er, sorry ... a winter solstice holiday season catalog .... then the spending will continue uninterrupted until China tells us we can't borrow any more money.


Your Stimulus Tax Dollars are Stimulating More than the Economy

WARNING: The following post is for Adults only and will probably turn your stomach.

I've never been a fan of using federal dollars to fund art. In my opinion, if art is good, it will be commercially successful without government funding. If it isn't, it shouldn't be funded.

The National Endowment for the Arts received $80 million of the government's trillion dollar stimulus package. That money has been used for things such as the weekly pervert revue at the "Frameline" film house. Every week, this "art-oriented" theater shows a film that most of us would find not simply disturbing, but downright disgusting. Tax dollars also fund the weekly production "Perverts Put Out" at San Francisco's CounterPULSE, who invites guests to join in the "explicit, twisted fun." CounterPULSE received government funds in the "dance" category.

These aren't isolated incidents, either. While there are no statistics, it seems that much of the money going to "art and culture" (not all of which goes through the National Endowment for the Arts, and accounts for much more than the $80 million that the NEA received from the Generational Theft Act) goes to "projects" and "artistic endeavors" that the average American would find objectionable.

The Symmetry Project is a dance that depicts the "sharing of a central axis: spine, mouth and genitals" and celebrates their interconnectedness.

Liberals would jump and scream if a single tax dollar were to fund a church service or a prayer meeting. But these same people have no problem at all using dollars meant to stimulate the economy to stimulate the senses of the perverted citizens of San Francisco.


Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Will Obama's Slump Continue?

Every president faces a rough patch or two. Obama's may be more troubling than most. A presidency that rests on a cult of personality rather than ideas is particularly vulnerable when the personality proves to be less attractive than initially thought.

Obama has not expended the massive political capital he brought with him to the office on anything meaningful. He did not suffer a drop in polls as Ronald Reagan did by doing the hard work of wringing inflation from the economy. Obama lost his popularity with only a failed stimulus package to show for it. He has not worked to sow the seeds of policy initiatives which will bear fruit later on. He frittered away his high standing on government earmarks and liberal political payback.

It would be a mistake to think Obama is permanently hobbled. His large congressional majorities may well deliver some type of health care reform for which he can take credit, and the CBO numbers indicate that health care reform won't completely bankrupt the nation for six to eight years. The economy is likely to eventually rebound, in spite of Obama's best efforts. But what has been lost is the "opportunity" which Rahm Emanuel bragged about to use both the recession and Obama's popularity to enact a fundamental shift in government.

Whether due to political overreach or to sagging employment, the chance to remake America to suit Obama's liberal vision is quickly slipping from the president's grasp. And you don't get opportunities like that very often.

Obama will recover, not because he's a good president, but because liberalism has invested too much in Obama. A full court press of the leftwing propaganda machine will re-burnish Obama.

Obama's failure would involve liberalism from top to bottom. Liberalism dodged away from Carter - claiming he failed because he wasn't liberal enough. Well, Obama is about as liberal as all but the kookiest of the kook left could desire. If Obama doesn't work, liberalism doesn't work.

The majority of Americans were duped in November. They were fed a steady diet of outright lies about President Bush and the war in Iraq, not to mention Guantanamo. They wanted a clean break. Well, they got it.

We were supposed to get a center-governing moderately liberal near-genius who would bring us all together in order to conquer the many problems America has at home and abroad. HopenChange. What we got was a dishonest neophyte who is busily dividing us from each other, coddling our enemies, insulting our friends, ignoring our real problems to tackle secondary issues like health care and fairy-tail issues like global warming, and robbing from the next several generations to pay back the friends of the political left.

People are beginning to realize they've been had.

We don't get do-overs. We're stuck with Obama until January 20th, 2013. It will be a very hard lesson. As Mencken once opined, people get the government they deserve, and they usually get it good and hard. Obama is the political two-by-four that is going to whack America upside the head and (hopefully) knock some sense into us, if he doesn't kill us in the process. If we learn this lesson, we may never have to deal with the likes of Obama, again.

Given the attention span of the voting public, however, it may take more than one whack to learn the lesson.


Quote of the Day

"With hurricanes, tornadoes, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?

- Jay Leno


Blue Dog Democrats Take Strong Stand

After several days of negotiating, it appears a health-takeover deal has been reached by the so-called Blue Dog Democrats. Details are still coming out, but it appears that the Blue Dogs sold out for about $100 Billion. Wow. $100 Billion out of a plan that is estimated to top the trillion dollar mark. Way to be, you "fiscally conservative" Blue Dogs!

One thing we have to keep in mind is that the label, "fiscally conservative," is a relative label applied by the mainstream media. These guys are fiscally conservative the same way Cher is young and "hip."

It would appear that the Blue Dogs have worked out an agreement that is designed to help them with the voters in their states. It "saves" $100 billion. If the whole health care system fails, they can say that they resisted it from the beginning and tried to make it work. If the system appears successful (at least in time for the next election cycle) they can claim credit for making it what it is. They can look moderate. They can help their party get the bill through. It's pretty much a no-lose situation for them, politically.

For the rest of the democrats, this could be a big blunder. Part of the deal is that the vote won't occur until the bill can be investigated; sometime after Labor Day. By that time, details will come out. Enough details that it should be clear just how bad this bill is for America.

The big question will be, will America be fooled into thinking this is a good thing, or will Americans see this for what it is. If there is a true open and honest debate over the details of the bill, and if that debate occurs in view of the public, there should be enough pressure put on moderate democrats to defeat the passage of the health care takeover.

If not ... we've got the Blue Dogs to kick around for a few more years.


The Beer Picnic

The latest seems to be that Obama has invited Professor Gates and Officer Crowley to the White House to sit down for a beer and discuss "The Situation."

Obama is making the same mistake here that he makes in trying to negotiate with rogue nations like Iran.

Clearly, Gates is going to take the stand that he is a black victim and that the cops, Crowley in particular, are all racists and out to get him.

Crowley is going to explain how he responded to a call without having race in mind and that Gates became belligerent.

There really is no middle ground, and I don't see Gates (or Obama) willing to apologize, because they can't do so without losing face. I can't see Crowley apologizing, since he appears to have no reason to apologize.


I make the comparison to Iran for this reason: Iran is like Gates. They both have a twisted world view that shapes their actions and they will not be swayed from that view. Obama things that everyone is willing to see the "other guy's" point of view. That is simply not the case. I could be wrong about Gates, and I hope I am, but I don't see him coming around and realizing that he mischaracterized the actions of Crowley. He has an agenda, and apologizing or seeing the view of the other side doesn't fit into that agenda.

This Beerfest is a complete waste of time. Nothing worthwhile will come of it. It's a distraction.


Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Conservative Kiosk Owner Hopes for a New Lease

From Fox News:

A man who sells conservative merchandise at a kiosk in a North Carolina mall says he hopes he'll be able to keep pushing "Impeach Obama" bumper stickers after his lease expires on Friday.

Loren Spivack says his kiosk, Free Market Warrior, is being nudged out of the Concord Mills mall in Concord, N.C., because of political reasons. He's scheduled to meet with mall officials Tuesday afternoon, when he might learn the fate of his eight-foot-long kiosk. A press conference at a nearby hotel is slated for 3 p.m., he told

The hottest sellers at the kiosk, which has been in the mall for roughly three months, are items that are critical of President Obama, Spivack said. They include a “Work Harder, Obama Needs the Money” bumper sticker and a T-shirt that lists the top 12 things Obama has been doing as the economy crashes.

Among the other merchandise sold at the kiosk and on its associated Web site are GOP elephant bobblehead dolls, a Republican president jigsaw puzzle and baby bibs that say, “My parents chose life. Thanks Mom and Dad!”

Asked if he felt targeted by mall officials due to those items, Spivack replied, “There’s no question. There’s no issue other than the material we’re selling.”

The brouhaha began, he says, when someone wrote a letter to the editor in the Charlotte Observer criticizing his business for promoting racism and sexism.

“This apparently got the attention of the national management,” Spivack told “They came down with a decision that we had to leave and that our lease would not be renewed when it expired.”

Spivack said he met briefly with mall manager Roy Soporowski on Sunday, the same day about 100 people rallied in front of the mall to support him and his right to the sell politically-charged merchandise.

“We didn’t come to any conclusions, but we agreed to speak again [Monday],” Spivack said. “We’d obviously like to stay, that would be very positive.”

Soporowski did not respond to several interview requests on Monday. A spokeswoman for Simon Property Group, which owns the mall, declined to comment.

Spivack declined to say how much he pays to rent the kiosk, citing a condition of his contract. And while the future of his business is currently in jeopardy, the controversy has had a noticeable benefit.

“Sales have definitely picked up,” he said. “Simon Malls clearly did me an unintentional favor.”


Monday, July 27, 2009

Dead Police Officers Upset Over Obama Presidency

I'm having trouble understanding Mr. Richard Cohen, the guest on Bill O'Reilly's program tonight. He is commenting on the Lou Dobbs story, and is upset that CNN won't fire Lou Dobbs, that right-wing nutjob, who claims that some people are claiming Obama wasn't born in the United States. Note, that they are not saying that Dobbs himself thinks that Obama wasn't born in the U.S., only that he's reporting that others make that claim. (Dobbs says that he believes Obama is a U.S. citizen.)

In the course of the conversation, Mr. Cohen claims that this is all about race. Lou Dobbs is promoting racial bigotry by reporting the story. He then said that there are "dead police officers in Pittsburg and dead police officers in Florida who are upset over the Obama presidency."

Oh really?

Did I hear that right? Let me back up the DVR and see if I heard that correctly.

Yep. Dead police officers are upset.

Gee. How does he know? If they are dead, how are they communicating with Mr. Cohen?

O'Reilly either didn't catch it, or decided to let it go, but that's what the guy said. Dead Police officers are upset over the Obama presidency.

You heard it here, first.

... Unless you were watching O'Reilly.


Israel: No Option Is Off the Table

Israel hardened its insistence Monday that it would do anything it felt necessary to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, just the ultimatum the United States hoped not to hear as it tried to nudge Iran to the bargaining table.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates reassured Israel that the new Obama administration was not naive about Iran's intentions, and that Washington would press for new, tougher U.N. sanctions against the Iranians if they balk. (I'm sure this has Iran shaking in their turbans.)

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak used a brief news conference with Gates to insist three times that Israel would not rule out any response — an implied warning that it would consider a pre-emptive strike to thwart Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

"We clearly believe that no option should be removed from the table," Barak said. "This is our policy. We mean it. We recommend to others to take the same position, but we cannot dictate it to anyone."

The question of how to deal with Iran's rapid nuclear advancement has become a notable public difference between the new administrations in Jerusalem and Washington, despite overall close relations. Israel considers itself the prime target of any eventual Iranian bomb.

Iran says it is merely trying to develop nuclear reactors for domestic power generation. Israeli leaders fear the U.S. prizes its outreach to Iran over its historic ties to Israel and appears resigned to the idea that Iran will soon be able to build a nuclear weapon.

Obama says he has accepted no such thing.


Obama Hates Rushed Legislation

Flashback: November 22, 2004. Newly elected Senator Obama (D-Ill) complains about legislation being rushed through congress:

Obama: "When you rush these budgets that are a foot high and nobody has any idea what's in them and nobody has read them...."

Randi Rhodes: "14 pounds, it was ... Yeah"

Obama: " "Yeah ... It gets rushed trough without any clear deliberations or debate then these kinds of things happen. And I think that this is in some ways what happened to the Patriot Act. I mean, you remember, there was no real debate about that. It was so quick after 9/11 that it was introduced that people felt very intimidated by the administration."

Good thing we don't do that anymore.


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.


Friday, July 24, 2009

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?


Thursday, July 23, 2009

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.


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.


About This Blog

This blog is about my opinions and world view.  I am a conservative, evangelical Christian.  Generally speaking, if you post a comment, I'll allow you to express your view.  However, if you say something hateful, untruthful, or just generally something I don't like, I may remove it.

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by 2008

Back to TOP