OBAMA SILENT ON VIOLENT, POST-ELECTION PROTESTS

By Rick Jensen

Why does President Obama refuse to condemn violent protesters?

On CBS’s “60 Minutes,” Leslie Stahl asked President-elect Trump to address the violence.

“When we interviewed him on Friday afternoon Mr. Trump said he had not heard about some of the acts of violence that are popping up in his name… or against his supporters,” Stahl reported., “Nor he said had he heard about reports of racial slurs and personal threats against African Americans, Latinos and gays by some of his supporters.”Here’s the back-and-fourth Stahl had with Trump:

Donald Trump: “I am very surprised to hear that– I hate to hear that, I mean I hate to hear that—-”

Lesley Stahl: “But you do hear it?”

Donald Trump: “I don’t hear it—-I saw, I saw one or two instances…”

Lesley Stahl: “On social media?”

Donald Trump: “But I think it’s a very small amount. Again, I think it’s—-”

Lesley Stahl: “Do you want to say anything to those people?”

Donald Trump: “I would say don’t do it, that’s terrible, ’cause I’m gonna bring this country together.”

Lesley Stahl: “They’re harassing Latinos, Muslims—-”

Donald Trump: “I am so saddened to hear that. And I say, “Stop it.” If it– if it helps. I will say this, and I will say right to the cameras: Stop it.”

Yes, president-elect Trump looked directly into the camera and said, “Stop it.”

Not the most eloquent language to engage people, and he did it nonetheless.

The very next day, Monday, November 14, President Obama addressed the nation on cable, broadcast TV and radio.

His first press conference since the election was casual with the friendly crowd of reporters, waxing along rather vaguely about issues domestic and international.

What he did not do was address the violent protesters.

Why not?

After all, protesters burning cars and looting stores are reacting to President Obama being replaced by someone who frightens them (at least the ones who are not being paid to do so).

These are, ostensibly, his people. They would not be rioting if he were elected to a third term, no matter that hypothetical concept’s lack of constitutional authority.

Some people suspect Obama wants the protests to continue; to create more fear and dissent towards a Trump presidency.

I really don’t know and cannot understand why he refuses to show such leadership.

Now, it’s unlikely they will stop, especially those who are paid by left-wing organizations to keep the protests and violence going.

The Washington Times reported …. “The far-left ANSWER Coalition and Socialist Alternative rushed to organize protest marches in major U.S. cities within hours of Mr. Trump’s presidential victory Tuesday, as did MoveOn.org, which has reportedly received funding from Mr. Soros, a billionaire.”

Republican Kellyanne Conway, who smashed the “glass ceiling” as the first woman to manage a successful presidential campaign, is calling upon Hillary Clinton and President Obama to publicly address the protesters, asking them for calm.

People, mostly Republicans in the Trump campaign, have publicly asked him to make such a plea.

Is it possible that President Obama is so privately angry at Trump’s win that he doesn’t care what the protesters do?

This is the irrational part.This is still your country, Mr. President.Why not speak to them?

It would be helpful for the country if President Obama would address the protesters and ask them to do so respectfully without violence.

Thanks to Wikileaks, we all know for a fact that radical leftist groups whose leaders say they were paid by the DNC and Hillary campaign instigated the violence at Trump rallies.

Now, with evidence these new violent protests are also funded by leftwing groups, it makes even more sense for the liberal President to speak directly to them.

He had another opportunity on Thursday, November 17, and chose to encourage protesters to keep protesting without admonishing violent leftists to do so lawfully.

Silence is consent.

#EpicFail

WHATS ON YOUR MIND TODAY?

Todays “READERS POLL” question is: Do you feel that last Mondays Zoning Board of Appeals meeting was opened, fair and objective?

Please take time and read our newest feature articles entitled “IU WOMEN’S-MENS SWIM AND DIVING TEAMS”.

Also take time to read “BIRTHDAYS, HOT JOBS” and “LOCAL SPORTS” posted in our sections.

If you would like to advertise in the CCO please contact us City-County Observer@live.com.

City County Observer has been serving our community for 15 years.

Copyright 2015 City County Observer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistribute.

Volunteers counted 5,798 homeless people during a single night in January of this year.

That’s a 10 percent drop from 2010.

HUD says more than 5,100 of the homeless population was located in emergency shelters or transitional housing programs, and nearly 700 were living on the streets.

The count does not include people who were living with friends and relatives.

It says the volunteers counted 663 homeless military veterans and 365 unaccompanied homeless youth and children.

Judges Decline To Consider Mother’s Actions In Med-Mal Case

Olivia Covington for www.theindianalawyer.com

The Indiana Court of Appeals has rejected a doctor’s argument that a patient’s mother served as an intervening cause to the loss of the patient’s kidney and instead upheld the rule that a parent’s alleged contributory negligence may not be imputed to a child’s medical malpractice claim.

On Oct. 9, 2008, Mindy Lawless brought her 10-year-old son, Tyler Lawless, to see Dr. Jane E. Wilson because he was vomiting and had a fever. Tyler had undergone a kidney biopsy 10 days earlier, but Wilson determined that his symptoms were not related to complications with the biopsy and instead diagnosed him with viral gastroenteritis.

Wilson ruled out other less common biopsy complications because he was not experience flank pain. She did not order an ultrasound, but if she had, it would have revealed that Tyler had suffered a urinoma from the biopsy.

During the appointment, Lawless played a voicemail from Dr. Jeffrey Leiser, the doctor who had performed the biopsy, and Wilson mistakenly believed based on the voicemail that Lawless was taking her son to Leiser for a follow-up biopsy appointment.

Tyler’s symptoms persisted and he began developing flank pain, so Lawless took him to see another doctor who said Tyler’s symptoms were not related to the biopsy but instead referred him to the Riley Hospital for Children pediatric gastroenterology clinic. That’s where the urinoma was discovered, and Tyler was subsequently forced to have his left kidney removed in May 2009.

Tyler, by next friend Lawless, filed a complaint against Wilson and the IU Medical Group in 2013 alleging that they had not met the applicable standard of care in treating Tyler, resulting in the loss of his kidney. The Marion Superior Court found in favor of Tyler in October 2015, placing greater weight on Lawless’ testimony that she never discussed a follow-up appointment with Leiser, and concluding that Wilson did not meet the standard of care because she took an incomplete medical history, failed to order an ultrasound, and did not confirm Tyler’s follow-up visit with Leiser.

Wilson and the IU Medical Group appealed, arguing that the judgment should be reversed because Lawless failed to seek an immediate follow-up appointment for Tyler. That constituted contributory negligence that must be imputed to Tyler and was an intervening, superseding cause, Wilson argued.

The Indiana Restatement (Second) of Torts holds that “A child who suffers physical harm is not barred from recovery by the negligence of his parent,” but Wilson requested an exception to that rule in her appeal.

The Indiana Court of Appeals denied that request in its Friday ruling in favor of Tyler, writing that Wilson’s request would apply a principle of comparative fault to the law of common law contributory negligence applicable in medical malpractice actions.

“Such a rule in this context would have severe consequences because contributory negligence acts as a complete bar to recovery,” Judge Elaine Brown wrote.

Further, the Court of Appeals rejected Wilson’s argument that Lawless’ failure to seek follow-up medical care for Tyler was an intervening cause that resulted in the loss of Tyler’s kidney. Brown wrote that the evidence did not reveal that the delay in his follow-up appointments was an intervening cause in the loss of his kidney. Further, when Lawless did take Tyler for follow-up care, doctors still did not immediately identify the urinoma. Thus, Lawless’ delay in seeking a follow-up appointment did not constitute an intervening cause.

The case is Jane E. Wilson, M.D., and IU Medical Group v. Tyler Lawless b/n/f Mindy R. Lawless, 49A05-1511-CT-1814.