November 30, 2009

A BLAST FROM THE PAST: Why I Oppose A War Surtax

A little over two years ago, I wrote on the issue of a "war surtax" being proposed by Representative David Obey and trumpeted by the reliably liberal EJ Dionne. Well, David Obey and his allies are at it again, now that it appears that President Obama is going to send more troops to Afghanistan rather than concede victory to the Taliban. Since the Obey proposal is back in the news, I'd like to bring that previous post back front and center for folks to access -- and to continue to show why the idea is no better today than it was the last time Obey tried to bring it forward.

* * *

Left-wing columnist EJ Dionne comes out in favor of the DOA proposal to impose a surtax to pay for the war in Iraq.

Would conservatives and Republicans support the war in Iraq if they had to pay for it?

That is the immensely useful question that Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, put on the table this week by calling for a temporary war tax to cover President Bush's request for $145 billion in supplemental spending for Iraq.

Uh, Mr. Dionne, we already are paying for it. Unlike large parts of the Democrat constituency, we actually do pay taxes.

The proposal is a magnificent way to test the seriousness of those who claim that the Iraq war is an essential part of the "global war on terror." If the war's backers believe in it so much, it should be easy for them to ask taxpayers to put up the money for such an important endeavor.

See the point above -- we are already paying taxes to support the military and to fight the war in Iraq.

Obey makes the case pointedly. "Some people are being asked to pay with their lives or their faces or their hands or their arms or their legs," he said in an interview this week. "If you're going to ask for that, it doesn't seem too much to ask an average taxpayer to pay 30 bucks for the cost of the war so we don't have to shove it off on our kids."

Or as Obey said in a statement, "I'm tired of seeing that only military families are asked to sacrifice in this war."

Congressman -- some people volunteered to be a member of the military. It isn't like they were shanghaied off the streets of America, only to wake up with a drug-induced hangover to find themselves in desert camos in the middle of a desert with a weapon in their hand. Using your argument, though, we should actually be adopting THAT as policy as well -- or a draft, which morally amounts to the same thing. You ready to advocate for the draft, Senator? Or better yet, mandatory military service for every adult, no exceptions permitted?

And I remind you, Congressman, we taxpayers are already paying for the war. Maybe you could cover the cost of the war by undoing the Bush tax cut that took the percentage of Americans paying income taxes to under 50%. But you won't do that -- after all, those net consumers of government largesse are more likely to be Democrats, and you certainly wouldn't want to expect them to shoulder any of the citizenship obligation to pay for national defense.

And as one who grew up as a part of one of those military families, I find your statements of concern for military families today to be uninspiring. After all, I remember being told my father was a war criminal when I was a kid because he was off in Vietnam -- and your side of the debate on the war continues to make such claims today.

Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership ran away from this idea as fast as you can say the words "Republican majority." That, of course, is what Democrats are afraid of. "Just as I have opposed the war from the outset," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, "I am opposed to a war surtax."

Obey doesn't hold this against his leadership. "They don't want to be demagogued by the White House when they have other fish to fry," he said.

Well that was a wise decision on their part. It would be really bad to argue that we need to impose an extra tax to pay for national security and defense -- a core function of the federal government under the US Constitution -- so we don't have to scrimp on entitlement programs and transfer payments that would cause the authors of that document to whirl dervishly in their mausoleums.

I mean it does seem rather freakish to argue that we need to pay an extra tax for the military so that we can continue farm subsidies that jack up food prices and create an entitlement program for middle class and wealthy children out of general revenues. Why not impose a surtax for those programs instead -- how many Americans would be prepare to pay extra for those programs?

But it's a shame that Democrats remain so defensive on the tax issue that they aren't willing to bring this proposal to the floor. What if the price for passing President Bush's supplemental appropriation were a tax to cover its costs? What if opponents of the war voted no because they are against Bush's policy and Republicans voted no because they think low taxes are more important than national security as they define it?

That's an aggressive way to frame any such antitax "no" votes, but it's also accurate. If a war appropriations bill with a tax included went down to overwhelming defeat, wouldn't that tell us something about the depth of commitment to this war?

Again, this could be argues with any social program. Why not a surtax for AFDC or WIC? Why not a surtax to pay for the subprime mortgage bailout program Democrats want? Why not one for Medicaid? Why not one for the Earned Income Credit that gives a refund to Americans of withholding taxes they never paid? And since you folks now oppose the Bush tax cuts, why not recover that money by repealing the elements of those cuts that took Americans off the tax rolls, on the grounds that national defense and national security mandate that more Americans begin paying taxes. Indeed, why not require every American earning above the poverty line begin paying taxes -- especially since they are the net consumers of the social services that you want to pay for with general revenue instead of defense and national security?

The Obey surtax, co-sponsored by Reps. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and John Murtha (D-Pa.), envisions a sliding scale running from roughly 2 percent on the taxes paid by lower-income Americans to 15 percent on upper-income Americans. Since wars are waged, in principle, on behalf of the entire country, this is the rare Democratic tax proposal that does not put the entire burden on the rich.

But yes it does, EJ -- it puts the burden on less than 50% of Americans. Why not advocate placing that burden of taxes upon every single American?

The plan does not ask for a tax to cover the $45 billion in Bush's supplemental request to pay for the war in Afghanistan. "There are legitimate expenditures on which we don't mind sharing the costs with future generations," Obey says, noting that there is a broad consensus that the fight in Afghanistan is in the long-term interest of the country. It might be less gimmicky to pay for both wars now, but some revenue is better than none.

Well let's pay for it now -- tax the untaxed now!

Ah, you say, but this is just symbolic politics. I don't think so, but let's assume it is. This idea is far more serious than the utterly empty fight Bush is about to pick with Congress over a $21 billion to $23 billion difference in spending in a federal budget that totals some $2.7 trillion.

But EJ -- are you and the Democrats saying that we have money for additional discretionary spending in all these other areas, but not for national security and national defense? And why are you trying to shift the burden for these unnecessary programs on to future generations? Why not a surcharge to pay for them? Could it be that this plan to treat the core federal function of national security and defense as the equivalent of supersizing a fast food value meal is simply a gimmick intended to abandon our troops in the field or snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for political purposes?

Here is a president who signed one bloated spending bill after another -- as long as they were passed by a Republican Congress -- posing as a fiscal conservative now that Democrats are in the majority. He's so tough and determined that he's also drawn the line on . . . children's health care.

Bush has often let it be known that he hates "small ball" politics. But there is nothing smaller or more trivial than a budget fight over a difference that any responsible president could easily resolve in negotiations with Congress. War spending aside, Obey says it would take no more than a week to reach a reasonable compromise on the overall budget if the White House would just engage.

And if the president believes in this war so much and doesn't want to raise taxes, let him propose the deep spending cuts it would take to cover the costs. Then Bush would show how much of a priority he believes this war is -- and he wouldn't be playing small ball.

Hey, I'm all for big cuts in spending -- and I find it interesting that you and the Democrats don't find a single dollar to trim anywhere, but instead propose a new surtax.

But then again, we know from experience what happens to such surtaxes. Americans were paying one imposed to cover the costs of the Spanish-American War, which occurred at the end of the 19th century, into the early years of the 21st century. This is really a stealth permanent increase in taxes, disguised as an anti-war measure. I'm sure that you already have your column written offering proposals on how to spend the money it raises once the Democrats have forced a withdrawal after the surtax has been collected.

|| Greg, 09:06 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (487) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Sharpton Kin Show The Apple Doesnt Fall Far From The Tree

When you take this sort of attitude when ticketed for a driving violation, it just proves that you believe you are entitled.

Al Sharpton's ex-wife and daughter launched an obscenity-laced tirade and tried to avoid being handcuffed after a Harlem traffic stop, prosecutors charged Monday. "Why the f--- are you locking her up?" Kathy Jordan, 53, yelled at officers as they arrested her daughter. "Get your f------ hands off her." Dominique Sharpton, 23, did not remain silent either when a cop handed her summons for cutting him off by crossing a double line and running a red light Oct. 30. "This is f------ bull----," police say she screamed. "You were driving too slow. I have a place to go to."

Now it isnt just the speech that is the problem, but also the active resisting of arrest that the two engaged in during this confrontation that raises a real issue. After all, the cops had Als little princess dead to rights on three moving violations, and her conduct (as well as her mothers) appears to have crossed the line into criminal behavior.

Of course, after Re. Al the Race-Baiter got off for inciting a race-based murder and attempting to frame public officials for a crime that never happened and then became a respected elder statesman in the Democrat Party, I guess this sort of conduct is seen by this mother and daughter as their right because they and their family are more untouchable than your average Mafia don.

Oh, and be sure to click the link the former Mrs. Sharpton sure does look like Ru Paul on a bad hair day.

|| Greg, 08:45 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (198) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

November 29, 2009

This Weeks Watcher's Council Winners

Council Submissions

Non-Council Submissions

|| Greg, 09:24 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (189) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Are Nicholas Kristof And The New York Times Going To Let John Die?

I always love the smug "I'm better than you are" ton of liberal columns in the New York Times -- especially when they reveal the hypocrisy of the liberal writers, editors, and ownership of that once great newspaper.

Take Nick Kristof's latest column.

If Joe Lieberman or other senators came across John Brodniak writhing in pain on the sidewalk, they presumably would jump to help him and rush him to a hospital.

Unfortunately, an emergency room wont help indeed, the closest E.R. has told him not to come back, he says. So, for those members of Congress who are wavering on health reform, listen to Johns story.

And most of the column that follows movingly tells us of this man's medical woes and uses them in an attempt to emotionally blackmail Americans into supporting some version of ObamaCare -- despite the fact that even if it passed tomorrow we would see a five-year lag before Americans get the promised health care (but no lag before the taxes to pay for that health care go into effect -- they would start immediately).

But interestingly enough, there are the things that Kristof does not do.

He doesn't follow up on the allegations of illegal behavior by one of the local hospitals, which has allegedly closed its ER to John, despite federal and state laws to the contrary. A little naming and shaming might have brought that hospital into compliance with the law -- and resulted in prosecution of those who have threatened to violate John's rights under existing law -- but that would have distracted from Kristof's purpose, which is apparently naming and shaming every liberal Democrat's least favorite senator, free-thinking independent Joe Lieberman. Ncik is more than willing to give Joe Lieberman the blame for the illegal actions of a hospital -- and in doing so, Kristof leaves John "writhing in pain on the sidewalk" by not doing what he can to get him help right now.

He doesn't provide his readers with any indication of how they might personally help John and his family with the medical bills. After all, I suspect that if every reader of the column kicked in ten bucks we could probably get John the treatment he needs. But doing so would get in the way with the clear purpose of the article -- namely getting government to require compulsory payments rather than voluntary charity to pay for health care for those John. You see, ObamaCare will leave John "writhing in pain on the sidewalk" for a very long time, because of the years of lag time before it will provide a single penny of help for individuals like John.

And, of course, Kristof doesn't tell us how much he, personally, has donated to aid John, which tells me that he has metaphorically left him "writhing in pain on the sidewalk" by not sparing him so much as one thin dime in charity. Nor does Kristof tell us what his editors and colleagues have given, leading me to believe that they have also chosen to leave John "writhing in pain on the sidewalk" in the name of supporting ObamaCare. Ditto the New York Times Company and its major shareholders (like Carlos Slim, the third richest man in the world) -- Kristof has probably not made any sort of appeal to them, again indicating that this reliable liberal is prepared to leave John "writhing in pain on the sidewalk" if it will somehow get ObamaCare through the Senate.

No, instead of doing any of the things that he could to help John get the help he needs right now, Nick uses him for propaganda purposes. You see, rather than act to help the man now, he'd rather see the federal government pick the pockets of every American for years before even a single American benefits under ObamaCare -- in the process hurting millions of American families like mine while holding out the promise of "free health care" at some future date, never mind that said "free health care" will cost more and give us less than what most Americans are paying for and receiving today.

Because after all -- liberalism is all about feeling good about yourself for getting the government to make others do what you would never voluntarily do yourself.

UPDATE: Nick more or less confirms for us that he and the NY Times have done nothing to help poor John, instead choosing to leave him "writhing in pain on the sidewalk" for political purposes. After all, he states that there is no fund to help John and his family, though he magnanimously supplies it for those who actually feel like doing what Kristof and his cronies at the Times won't do -- namely help John out voluntarily. The address is: John and Esther Brodniak, 770 W Main St., Sheridan, OR 97378. Be generous to the degree your conscience urges.

Otheres blogging include Michelle Malkin, Three Sources, Professor Bainbridge, Vocal Minority

|| Greg, 09:06 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (21) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

November 28, 2009

The Obama Plan For Peace In The Middle East


The ever insightful cartoonist over at Dry Bones Blog has really captured the nature of the Obama Regime's plan for Middle East "peace". After six decades of survival in the midst of the hostile Muslim horde that populates its neighbors, and after four decades of giving the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria greater rights and freedom than any Jew in the Muslim world is allowed to enjoy, those whose sympathy is not with the Jewish people still demand that it be Israel that makes concessions in order to stop the constant terrorist attacks upon its people while appeasing the terrorists and their supporters.

The latest example? The Obama "peace" plan that demands that the Israelis accept the pre-1967 borders as the foundation for any peace plan. You know, the borders that existed that forbade Jews from approaching the Western Wall. We've already seen that the Obama Regime has demanded such strict limits on Jewish neighborhoods and towns (what Israel's opponents call "settlements") that the birth of a baby would technically require another Jew to relocate before the child could be brought home.

Not that the Obama "peace" plan, which would ethnically cleanse areas occupied by Jews for over three millennia of their Jewish residents and which would dispossess Jews who purchased land and houses from Arabs of homes to which they have legal title. will satisfy even the "moderates" among the Arabs. If it would have, we could have had peace during the final year of the Bush Administration -- or for that matter, during the last days of the Clinton Administration. After all, Israel has already made offers substantially equivalent to the Obama "peace" plan on those occasions, only to have them spurned as insufficient by Arafat and Abbas. What we know, of course, is that no plan will be acceptable to the Palestinians other than what they have always demanded -- the destruction of Israel and the driving of Israel's Jews into the sea. And in Barack Obama, the Palestinians finally have an American president prepared to be complicit in their genocidal designs.

|| Greg, 05:39 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (165) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

November 27, 2009

Side With the Troops or Side With Iran -- Guess Which Obama Chose

If you said the troops, you fail.

Barack Obama has sided with Iran's Islamist government over a US court decision intended to provide restitution to the families of Marines killed in the 1983 attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut.

Devlin is among 30 Massachusetts relatives of victims of the Beirut attack who have been fighting for more than a decade to get compensation for what many consider the first major terrorist attack against the United States. After a federal judge ruled in 2007 that Iran was liable for $2.65 billion in damages to be shared by 150 families seeking restitution, they believed they were on the cusp of victory.

But now, the Obama administration is going to court to try to block payments from Iranian assets that the families lawyers want seized, contending that it would jeopardize sensitive negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program and establish a potentially damaging precedent.

In a little-noticed filing in federal court, the Justice Department is arguing that giving the money to the victims can have significant, detrimental impact on our foreign relations, as well as the reciprocal treatment of the United States and its extensive overseas property holdings.

Yeah -- like I guess that allowing the families of slain heroes to collect damages from a government long acknowledged to be a state sponsor of terrorism will lead Iran to continue its illegal nuclear program. Oh, that's right -- it is already thumbing its nose at the US and the UN on that one. And there is little likelihood of Mahmoud the Mad becoming a lover of America over this decision.

But hey, Obama has been trying to appease the Muslim world since even before he was elected -- he knows he's already lost those who love America.

|| Greg, 05:27 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (17) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Americans Wising Up -- Support For Obama Dropping

Read 'em and weep, liberals -- Barack Obama's support is dropping like a rock.


Obama's approval rate has declined among EVERY demographic group except African-Americans. Indeed, most groups have seen double-digit drops in their approval of the president. How long until it is fair to apply the EPIC FAIL label to the Obama presidency?

|| Greg, 05:13 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (17) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

A Quote To Remember

Next time Markos "Kos" Moulistas endorses a candidate or supports a political measure, we don't just have to remind he American public about how he supported the murder of Americans in Iraq a few years back -- we now have a whole new quote to remind folks about.

I hate the Afghanistan Taliban. Because they're anti-woman, they're anti-gay, they're anti-progress, science. It's the exact same reason I really hate the Michelle Bachmanns of the American Taliban.

Interestingly enough, he does not hate the Taliban because they hid Osama bin Laden, supported the 9/11 attacks, have killed American troops in the field, and continue to spout anti-American rhetoric. He hates them because they don;t support his politics.

And what's more, he can't tell the difference between those who engage in such barbarism and his fellow Americans who exercise rights protected by the US Constitution.

Remember, folks, this is Barack Obama's base.

|| Greg, 05:01 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (18) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Shockingly Mild Punishment For Religion-Based Assaults At Florida School

But since the victims were just Jews, I suppose that liberals will tell us it is no big deal.

Ten North Naples Middle School students were suspended last week after district officials said they participated in kick a Jew day.

District Spokesman Joe Landon said a student told the dean of students at dismissal on Thursday that she was kicked because it was kick a Jew day.

The following morning Principal Margaret Jackson addressed the entire student body on the morning news regarding the incident, reviewing the code of student conduct, explaining why what happened was wrong, the need to respect one another and possible consequences, Landon said.

The little anti-Semites got only one day of in-school suspension -- and a phone conference with the parents. That's rather pathetic in my book.

Still, I'm willing to bet that had it been "Kick A Catholic Day", there would have been an even less substantial punishment.

But on the other hand, "Kick A N!99er Day" would have likely resulted in longer suspensions out of school, with referrals to the juvenile justice system

And if it had been "Kick A Muslim Day". . . well, I don't think think it takes much imagination to figure out what would have happened.

|| Greg, 04:43 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (204) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Something That Should Be Considered

At least by those who want to keep America safe from jihadis rather than allow those who sympathize with them continue to occupy the Oval Office , Department of Justice, and Department of Defense.

A new group wants former Vice President Dick Cheney back in the White House.

The organization - "Draft Dick Cheney 2012" - launched on Friday, and unveiled their new Web site. Their aim: To convince the former vice president to seek the Republican presidential nomination in the next race for the White House. But there may be a major roadblock to the group's pitch - Cheney himself.

"The 2012 race for the Republican nomination for President will be about much more then who will be the party's standard bearer against Barack Obama, the race is about the heart and soul of the GOP," said Christopher Barron, one of the organizers of the Draft Cheney movement. "There is only one person in our party with the experience, political courage and unwavering commitment to the values that made our party strong and that person is Dick Cheney."

Am I jumping on the Cheney bandwagon? No, I'm not -- at least not yet. I see a number of other Republicans who are potentially serious candidates for the nomination who might bring with them the sort of strength of character and vision for American security that Dick Cheney has long enunciated in a clear fashion. But I think we do need to at least consider the possibility of nominating the former vice president -- and certainly listen to the ideas he has to offer. Otherwise we may end up with the unserious, unqualified, or unelectable.

|| Greg, 04:05 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (22) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

My Family Will Be Hurt By The Democrat Health Care Scheme

I've never made a secret of the fact that my wife suffers from serious chronic degenerative health issues. It is a part of our everyday life.

Some folks have argued that folks like me ought to embrace ObamaCare (or one of its siblings) as a great boon to folks like us. I don't agree with that, because it will take from us choices that we currently have due to the fact that I work for, and pay for, our health insurance.

And I also contribute to a tax deferred flexible spending account in order to pay for my wife's medication (as well as my own) -- a predictable medical expense each month. But if the latest Democrat heath care scam goes through, I'm going to lose the ability to fully pay for those medications using that flexible spending account. You see, the current Democrat plans cap my contributions at an amount lower than what we currently pay for those medications each month.

Families with special-needs children and people with chronic illnesses stand to lose hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars in tax benefits under proposed health care reform legislation, critics say, warning that a plan to cap the amount of money people can put into special "flexible spending" health accounts will have "cruel" and "unintended consequences."

The Senate and House health care bills both include a revenue-raising provision that would cap at $2,500 the amount of money workers can put into flexible spending accounts. The accounts, used by millions, allow workers to store pre-tax dollars to cover out-of-pocket health care expenses during the year.

Might I get some of that money back later at tax time? Maybe -- but only after being forced to give an involuntary interest-free loan to the federal government. In other words, we are looking at a revenue grab to pay for health care -- one being made at the expense of disabled and chronically ill Americans.

I won't be alone at my school, though.

My colleague with the severely disabled son will feel the bite of ObamaCare as she loses the ability to defer those taxes in order to pay for her son's needed equipment and therapy from her flex account. Ditto my colleague with the daughter with down Syndrome. Several colleagues have serious chronic health issues for which they use flex accounts -- and they will lose much of that ability to financially plan for their medical care.

Yeah -- ObamaCare is really going to help the Americans who most need the medical system. Tell me another one.

|| Greg, 01:10 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (36) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Islamo-Blasphemy Alert

Islam is, of course, one big act of blasphemy against Jesus Christ, in that it relegates him to the position of mere prophet, denies his divinity, and places Muhammad above him. But I think that this latest act of Islamo-blasphemy goes a bit too far.

Jesus (Eesa (as)) was the penultimate Prophet sent by God (Allah) to bring mankind out of the darkness and hegemony of man-made law, into the perfection and beauty of divine law.

Sadly, his character is one of the most controversial in the world today, with Jews rejecting him and Christians elevating him to the blasphemous status of son of God or even God Himself; Muslims on the other hand venerate him as one of the most important Messengers of God, who will return one day, break the cross and prove to the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) the truth of Islam.

In light of this, Islam4UK, a platform for Al-Muhajiroun, have decided to launch a unique campaign in the run up to Christmas, challenging Jews and in particular Christians to an open debate on the true message of Jesus.

This event has been booked for 18th December 2009, precisely one week before Christmas Day and we hereby call out to all Christian leaders in the UK to come forward and defend their claim to Jesus on this special day, if they sincerely believe they are on the truth.

If you or anyone you know are interested in participating in the debate and would like to know more about arrangements for the day please contact Abu Yahya on 07961577221.

You will also witness several articles as a precursor to this event, outlining the life of Jesus (peace be upon him) and his mission, in light of the Qur'an and Sunnah. Indeed, as Muslims we believe that Jesus was a Muslim, and moreover that if he were alive today, that he would reject the evil bureaucracy of man-made law and wholeheartedly embrace the divine law (Shari'ah)of the Final Messenger sent to the whole of mankind, Muhammad (saw).

Jesus a Muslim? Embracing the teachings of the demon-possessed pedophile Muhammad? What a sick joke.

But if Muslims do believe this, they certainly cannot object to the following response from Christians.

You know -- behavior supposedly justified under sharia when a Danish newspaper published cartoons of the false prophet Muhammad. If Jesus really does embrace sharia as this Muslim group claims, then certainly Muslims can't object if Christians act like, well, Muslims when faced with blasphemy against our religion.

But then again, we know that such things will not happen -- because Christians reject the evil of sharia and instead embrace the Christ's Law of Love.

H/T Jawa Report

|| Greg, 12:38 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (96) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

November 26, 2009

Thank God He Found Some Light Reading About His Favorite Subject

Seems President Obama was able to find something to read while visiting Camp David.


Fortunately, it even has an article about his favorite subject.


Seems to me that we may need to replace "Hail to the Chief" with a different song when GQ's "Leader of the Year" enters the room.

|| Greg, 04:41 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (19) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

November 24, 2009

Watcher's Council Results -- November 20, 2009

Council Submissions

Non-Council Submissions

|| Greg, 07:43 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (19) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

America First -- In Paying the Bill For Medical Care For Illegal Aliens

Over at American Thinker, they are pointing out where America is first -- when it comes to responsibility for caring for the sick of other nations, including those whose presence here is a mockery of American law.

Fifty-one people -- nearly all illegal immigrants -- are facing a "life-or-death limbo" after a cash-strapped Atlanta charity hospital decided it must stop providing them free kidney dialysis treatments that were costing the hospital (or rather taxpayers) $50,000 per year.

That's according to a heart-rending article in Saturday's New York Times about the excruciating choices faced by Atlanta's Grady hospital upon closing its outpatient dialysis unit. Over the years, the unit has been overrun by illegal immigrants, and it has thus become a major financial drain on the taxpayer-supported safety-net hospital, the Times explained in its lengthy article: "The Breaking Point: Hospital Falters as Refuge for Illegal Immigrants."

Who is to blame for this heart breaking situation?

Not surprisingly, the Times blames America's heartless polices on health care and immigration. Or as the paper explains, the moral dilemma Grady has faced is a stark reflection of what happens when the countrys inadequate health care system confronts its defective immigration policy.

But writer David Paulin notes that it is very interesting to see who the folks at the former paper of record do not hold accountable for the care for these illegal aliens, most of whom are presumably Mexican (an assumption based strictly upon the proportion of Mexican border jumpers in the immigration criminal community). The Government of Mexico (which rakes in a great deal of cash from its state-run oil industry) and the richest citizens of Mexico (like Carlos Slim, the third richest man in the world with $35 billion in personal assets) apparently do not have any responsibility for the health care of Mexicans -- and indeed, these people would be most unlikely to get dialysis in Mexico. Of course, that could have something to do with the fact that Slim, a crony of every Mexican leader for decades, is a large shareholder in the New York Times, so it would not be proper to suggest the confiscation of a portion of HIS wealth to pay for the medical care of impoverished Mexicans (especially since Slim took a $25 billion dollar financial hit when the markets crashed last year -- how is he managing to get by on only 60% of his pre-crash assets?).

No, it is we Americans and our government who somehow are supposed to be providing medical care to those who kick open our nation's door and waltz in to a country where they are neither wanted nor welcome because of their criminal disregard for our nation's immigration laws.

|| Greg, 01:14 PM || Permalink || Show Comments (23) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Quote Of The Day -- Part II

From ABC's Bill Weir on Good Morning America, in regards to Senator Mary Landrieu.

"The people of Louisiana sent her to Washington to get as much sausage as they could, you know, she could."

Bill, even though Mary has shown herself to be a political prostitute on ObamaCare, there are just some things you don't say about a lady.

Even when the lady has all the principles of a lady of the evening.

By the way -- this entire episode shows that the Democrats don't give a rat's ass about folks harmed by Hurricane Katrina, or that they don't believe these funds are really needed by the state of Louisiana. After all, if they did care about the victims of Katrina, they would have passed this measure as stand-alone legislation -- if the need for the money could actually be justified.

|| Greg, 11:53 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (19) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Quote Of The Day -- Part I

From Hugh Hefner.

"There was a moment when I was having sex with four Playmates and I almost swallowed a Ben Wa ball."

Well, we ll have to die somehow, and I can think of worse deaths...

|| Greg, 11:44 AM || Permalink || Show Comments (264) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||