There is a lot discussion about medical treatment of illegal aliens in the US. I have witnessed this myself on a late-night trip to the hospital with a sick granddaughter. Most of the people there were apparently Mexican; at least, they were speaking Spanish, and many of them appeared to not understand English. The patients were children and one was receiving kidney dialysis. A large portion of the babies born in the DFW area have illegal alien mothers. Here are some comments on the situation:

Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas is a fairly famous institution and for a variety of reasons:

1. John F. Kennedy died there in 1963
2. Lee Harvey Oswald died there shortly after
3. Jack Ruby-who killed Oswald, died there a few years later.

On the flip side, Parkland is also home to the second busiest maternity ward in the country with almost 16,000 new babies arriving each year. (That's almost 44 per day---every day)

A recent patient survey indicated that 70 percent of the women who gave birth at Parkland in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants. That's 11,200 anchor babies born every year just in Dallas

According to the article, the hospital spent $70.7 million delivering 15,938 babies in 2004 but managed to end up with almost $8 million dollars in surplus funding. Medicaid kicked in $34.5 million, Dallas County taxpayers kicked in $31.3 million and the feds tossed in another $9.5 million.

The average patient in Parkland is maternity wards is 25 years old, married and giving birth to her second child. She is also an illegal immigrant. By law, pregnant women cannot be denied medical care based on their immigration status or ability to pay.

OK, fine. That doesn't mean they should receive better care than everyday, middle-class American citizens. But at Parkland Hospital, they do. Parkland Memorial Hospital has nine prenatal clinics. NINE.

The Dallas Morning News article followed a Hispanic woman who was a patient at one of the clinics and pregnant with her third child---her previous two were also born at Parkland . Her first two deliveries were free and the Mexican native was grateful because it would have cost $200 to have them in Mexico . This time, the hospital wants her to pay $10 per visit and $100 for the delivery but she was unsure if she could come up with the money. Not that it matters, the hospital won't turn her away -- (I wonder why they even bother asking at this point.)

How long has this been going on? What are the long-term effects?

Well, another subject of the article was born at Parkland in 1986 shortly after her mother entered the US illegally - now she is having her own child there as well. (That's right, she's technically a US citizen.)

These women receive free prenatal care including medication, nutrition, birthing classes and child care classes. They also get freebies such as car seats, bottles, diapers and formula.

Most of these things are available to American citizens as well but only for low-income applicants and even then, the red tape involved is almost insurmountable.


Because these women are illegal immigrants, they do not have to provide any sort of legitimate identification - no proof of income. An American citizen would have to provide a social security number which would reveal their annual income - an illegal immigrant need only claim to be poor and the hospital must take them at their word.


Parkland Hospital offers indigent care to Dallas County residents who earn less than $40,000 per year. (They also have to prove that they did not refuse health coverage at their current job. Yeah, the 'free' care is not so easy for Americans.)

There are about 140 patients who received roughly $4 million dollars for un-reimbursed medical care. As it turns out, they did not qualify for free treatment because they resided outside of Dallas County so the hospital is going to sue them! Illegals get it all free! But U.S citizens who live outside of Dallas County get sued! How stupid is this?

As if that isn't annoying enough, the illegal immigrant patients are actually complaining about hospital staff not speaking Spanish. In this AP story, the author speaks with a woman who is upset that she had to translate comments from the hospital staff into Spanish for her husband. The doctor was trying to explain the situation to the family and the mother was forced to translate for her husband who only spoke Spanish. This was apparently a great injustice to her.

In an attempt to create a Spanish-speaking staff, Parkland Hospital is now providing incentives in the form of extra pay for applicants who speak Spanish. Additionally, medical students at the University of Texas Southwestern for which Parkland Hospital is the training facility will now have a Spanish language requirement added to their already jammed-packed curriculum. No other school in the country boasts such a ridiculous multi-semester (multicultural) requirement.

(Sorry for the length, but this needs wide circulation particularly to our "employees" in Congress.)

Remember that this is about only ONE hospital in Dallas, Texas. There are many more hospitals across our country that must also deal with this.

I know two nurses who work at Parkland, and, while they don't know specific statistics, they confirm that most of the babies born there appear to have illegal alien mothers. (This may not be true in all cases, since illegal aliens don't have to have any proof, and the illegals get preferential treatment.) It is also true that Mexico has made formal complaint that the police and hospital staff in Texas should speak Spanish so as not to inconvenience Mexican citizens who come to Texas to work or for medical care. (When I was borm there were 6 million people in Texas with very few Mexicans, living mostly along the border with Mexico. Now there are 8 million Mexicans in Texas, covering the entire state. Many of them are citizens of the US thanks to Reagan's one-time amnesty.)

Obama is trying to turn the US into a European-style socialist nation. Included in that transformation is a drastic reduction in the availability of energy. England is ahead of us. Projections are that England is on a path to blackouts in the near future due to their leaders worship at the alter of the "green" religion that Obama is also worshiping.

It has long been noted that environmentalism has become a religion. I suppose it could be termed a revision to old religions, such as the nature worship of American Indians. Environmentalists claim that their "green" religion is based on science, but in reality it is based on faith, just as more traditional religions are. Now in England a judge has ruled that "green" actually is a religion, and its believers have freedom of religion legal protection. I am not surprised.

This article suggests that Obama could improve the economy and reduce greenhouse gas generation by championing a switch to natural gas, since the US now has a lot of it. I think it is unlikely that Obama would do that. The Obama Administration has scared operators off from drilling for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale in upstate New York, and has indicated they would like to ban hydraulic fracturing altogether. The Obama Administration appears to be more inclined to punitive action to reduce energy consumption than to adopt an alternative strategy that would provide more low cost energy. They would like to promote high cost energy to help redcue consumption.

Police in England have electric patrol cars. They will go 100 miles withoit a recharge if they don't turn on the lights. I presume they don't have an air conditioner since they are in England. It seems doubtful that many people in Texas would want a car with no A/C. I feel certain that are some "greenies" who would want one, but most people wouldn't. It is hot here in the summer. That brings up the matter of a heater. Sometimes it is cold in Texas, and a heater is necessary. In fact there is not much of the year in which the weather moderate here: most of the time either hot or cold.

In an interview with a German magazine, Charles Krauthammer rates Obama as an average President. I think that is an overly generous assessment, but that's just me.

The Democrat's recent feel-good Hate Crime Legislation appears to me to be an attempt to muzzle free speech. Many Democrats tell me that they are not opposed to freedom of speech, etc., but hateful speech should be controlled. The trajectory of hate crime legislation can be observed from what has happened in Great Britain. There Hate Crime legislation is being used to at least intimidate people from expressing their thoughts, as discussed by Mark Steyn.

Nancy Pelosi's healthcare reform bill creates 111 new boards, commissions, etc. Obviously a lot of new bureaucracy. Here is a list from the blog Powerline. I couldn't see how some of these bodies would relate to healthcare.

When I was in Graduate School I figured out that fascism and communism were very similar and are both the opposite of capitalism, something that Democrats have not seemed to have figured out yet. I think my awakening came from reading the works of Ayn Rand and Friedrich Hayek. I also always read Walter Lippmann. I recently read that Walter Lippman pointed out during the 1930's that socialism, fascism, communism, progressivism, and even liberalism were all the same: authoritarian collectivists. Here is Ayn Rand's view of communism and fascism as contrasted with Capitalism.

"It is obvious what the fraudulent issue of fascism versus communism accomplishes: it sets up, as opposites, two variants of the same political system; it eliminates the possibility of considering capitalism; it switches the choice of 'Freedom or dictatorship?' into 'Which kind of dictatorship?' -- thus establishing dictatorship as an inevitable fact and offering only a choice of rulers. The choice -- according to the proponents of that fraud -- is: a dictatorship of the rich (fascism) or a dictatorship of the poor (communism). That fraud collapsed in the 1940's, in the aftermath of World War II. It is too obvious, too easily demonstrable that fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory -- that both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state -- that both are socialistic, in theory, in practice, and in the explicit statements of their leaders -- that under both systems, the poor are enslaved and the rich are expropriated in favor of a ruling clique -- that fascism is not the product of the political 'right,' but of the 'left' -- that the basic issue is not 'rich versus poor,' but man versus the state, or: individual rights versus totalitarian government -- which means: capitalism versus socialism." --philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

Our current President is the master of the false choice as described above by Ayn Rand.

Obama is reported to be prepared to sign a treaty in the upcoming meeting in Copenhagen that would surrender UN sovereignty to the UN. We would hope that the Senate would not approve such a treaty, or, if the Senate did agree, that the Supreme Court would void the treaty. But, with Obama and the Liberal Democrats in control, an attempt may be made to enforce the treaty. Not much attention has been paid to this in the media, for reasons that are unclear to me. I suppose, given the Obama control over NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR, etc., they would have no objection to the treaty. I think it could lead to the civil war that Obama and his friends are hoping for. Here is some discussion from American Thinker.

Hilliary Clinton went to Pakistan and told some whoppers. She said that when her husband left office, peace in the middle East was at hand. But Bush messed it up. This is ridiculous because the Palestinians are not interested in peace; they want the elimination of Israel. Apparently that would be OK with Obama, who follows what seem to me to be un-American policies both foreign and domestic. Here are views that I support from American Thinker.

Once upon a time Donald Rumsfeld pressured his generals to find a way to win with fewer troops, and was roundly condemned by all on the left. Now Joe Biden is pressuring generals to find a way to win with fewer troops, and he is proclaimed by the left to be of superior wisdom. (This is odd because Biden has seldom been right about anything.) I suppose this just shows that timing is business.

Liberals don't like Ayn Rand. Here are some of her comments:

"When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you - when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - you may know that your society is doomed."

—Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged (1957)

We may no be done yet, but a few more years on Obama will surely put us dire jeopardy.

Obama said we should judge him by the company he keeps. But, for some reason he didn't want to release the records of who visits the White House. From Flopping Aces here is a list of some of Obama's buddies. Actually, Michael Jordan seems OK.