My sentiments exactly. The religious nuts and right wing whackjobs took it over.
Tea Party’ is over: Ex-activist says racism, hypocrisy killed the movement
I always defended the Tea Party against charges of racism. And then last week, someone with whom I am Facebook “friends” posted something extremely racist and I called her out on it. Immediately, her friends jumped down my throat, calling me a liberal and saying I wasn’t a real tea partier, despite the fact that I was one of 10 people on the first Tea Party conference calls back in January of 2009.
That was just one of many wake-up calls.
Sadly, what began as a genuine opportunity to make this country more free has deteriorated to racist name calling, fear of anyone with brown skin, and an irrational focus on Sharia law.
A chance for Libertarians to reform the GOP
Nobody has been a bigger supporter of the Tea Party than I have been.
In Orlando, I think we had one of the best organized groups. Along with Cincinnati and Houston, Orlando was one of the cities that saw the biggest rallies, the most active tea partiers, and attracted the biggest names to speak at our events. When the left would point to the one nut-job in a crowd of 6,000 with a racist sign and call all 6,000 people racists, the more Libertarian tea partiers like me, would always use ourselves and our groups as examples of of the real, average tea partier.
At our events here in Orlando I met people who said they had never come to a political rally. Even when the left insisted that the Tea Party was just a bunch of GOP activists, I knew better. The people I talked to at our rallies were usually more independent. Of course there were lots of Republicans and some even more conservative members of the Whig Party and Conservative Party, but there were also lots of Libertarians, independents, and Constitution Party members.
I always felt like the Tea Party was going to be the chance for Libertarians to do two things:
First, I thought it was a golden opportunity to show Republicans the hypocrisy of their platform.
Secondly, I thought it was a great chance for us to talk to apolitical, independent folks who were genuinely angry about the bank bailouts: folks who work for a living or own a small business and felt like, “hey, I employ 25 people and no one is going to bail me out. To hell with GM and Lehman Brothers!”
These are people who vote for president every four years but don’t vote in midterm elections. They don’t really care if gays get married or if college kids smoke pot. They also do not want to have their paychecks confiscated to pay for Obamacare. They voted for the GOP in 2010 and made John Boehner Speaker of the House.
A movement hijacked by the political and religious right
And then, the Dick Army’s of the political world started to creep in and take over the movement. They were very slick about it. They started giving all of these individual Tea Party groups money so people who were selling real estate six months earlier could now make a living watching Fox News and blogging, or posting on Twitter and Facebook.
It’s so sad to me that a movement that began as an organic reaction to big government has been hijacked by the right. The Tea Party’s slogan was, “fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets” — but it has now become the religious right in tri-corner hats.
I thought we were going to have Republicans thinking for once and realizing that if Barack Obama put an entire private sector industry out of business and then nationalized that same industry and created a new cabinet level department to oversee and regulate the industry I would call it socialism … so how come I was OK with George W. Bush doing the same thing to the airline security industry? And I am glad that we are all concerned about extra-judicial drone strikes on American citizens, but how come George Bush and Barack Obama can both kill Americans with drones overseas without a trial? Is it because the targets have brown skin and a foreign last name?
But alas we learned no such lessons. We are OK with big government as long as it’s a Republican administration. We are OK with losing our civil liberties as long as a white Republican is the one in the White House taking our freedoms away.
We are mad at New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg for trying to tell us how much soda we can drink because we should be able to consume whatever we want, whether it’s trans-fats or soda or raw milk — the government shouldn’t tell us what we can put in our bodies. Unless of course it’s a substance that WE think is harmful, like marijuana. And that’s even though sugary drinks have been linked to diabetes, and even though children now get what was once called “adult onset diabetes.” We should be free to drink as much as we want. And even though marijuana has never hurt a single person it is illegal, and we will lock you up, ruin your life, and put a felony on your record if you try to ingest it. We don’t need “Nanny Bloomberg” (as Sean Hannity calls him) telling us what is good for us and what is bad for us, and if I want to eat or drink things that are bad for me, I have every right. But I cannot smoke things that are bad for me … except cigars and cigarettes, and …
It is all so hypocritical it makes your head spin.
Driving Independents away
Hypocrisy and racism are what drove independents who voted Republican in 2010 away from the Tea Party. The same thing has happened with the Libertarians, like me, who were part of the original Tea Party. We have been driven away from the rallies and the meetings because what was supposed to be a movement about fiscal issues has become the activist-wing of the GOP. If you don’t think every Muslim is a terrorist you are not a real Tea Party member. If you think that the U.S. Constitution does not say anything about drugs, and that therefore, under the 9th and 10th Amendments the issue should be left to the states, you are not a real Tea Party member. And when you use the Constitution to prove to them that they are wrong it sends them into fits.
I remember explaining to one pseudo-constitutional “scholar” that the Full Faith and Credit Clause says that legal acts and records from one state are valid in every state. Therefore, if you respect the Constitution and believe in the strict interpretation of the Constitution then you must understand that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. That law says that gay marriages in one state do not have to be recognized by other states.
But because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, marriages from one state are recognized by other states. I asked this so-called conservative how he could say that he is an expert on the Constitution and that the Constitution is sacred, while supporting DOMA, which basically says, “To hell with the Constitution — states don’t have to recognize this particular document issued to these particular people.” I thought he was going to swallow his own tongue. He just had this look on his face that said: “does not compute.” Then he called me a liberal and walked away.
I don’t understand how these people think they are going to win elections when they tell people that “God hates gays” and all Muslims are terrorists, and every Hispanic is an illegal alien. I asked this during the racist Facebook conversation. Do they think that gays, Muslims, and Hispanics will vote Republican in spite of the fact Republican activists are telling them how much they hate them? Or do they think they can win elections with only white, Christian, men over 40 voting for them.
Either way, as a Republican campaign consultant I do not look forward to the next few election cycles. The best hope we have, really, is the mid-term elections, when blacks, gays, Muslims, and Hispanics are more likely to stay home.
Phil Russo is a conservative activist, radio host and campaign consultant. Follow him on Twitter handle is @Libertas1776.
David Sirota, our local leftard libturd...
The liberal online magazine Salon published an opinion piece Tuesday evening by columnist David Sirota entitled, “Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American,” in which Sirota argued that if the perpetrator of Monday’s bombing attack, which left at least three people dead, is identified as a Muslim then conservative Republicans will use the tragedy to block Obama administration policy goals like immigration reform.
“If recent history is any guide, if the bomber ends up being a white anti-government extremist, white privilege will likely mean the attack is portrayed as just an isolated incident — one that has no bearing on any larger policy debates,” Sirota wrote in his Salon piece, which featured an image of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh cropped beside a photograph of Osama bin Laden.
“It will probably be much different if the bomber ends up being a Muslim and/or a foreigner from the developing world. As we know from our own history, when those kind of individuals break laws in such a high-profile way, America often cites them as both proof that entire demographic groups must be targeted, and that therefore a more systemic response is warranted. At that point, it’s easy to imagine conservatives citing Boston as a reason to block immigration reform defense spending cuts and the Afghan War withdrawal and to further expand surveillance and other encroachments on civil liberties,” Sirota wrote.
Sirota is not the only liberal media commentator to attempt to politicize Monday’s tragedy. As The Daily Caller has reported, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer speculated on a link between Patriots Day and the motive behind the bombings, while NBC News reporter Luke Russert speculated that the 1993 Waco siege, which occurred on Patriots Day, might have inspired a right-wing terrorist in Boston. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof used the tragedy to attack Republican politicians, tweeting Monday, ““Explosion is a reminder that ATF needs a director. Shame on Senate Republicans for blocking apptment.””
Sirota has employed attention-grabbing, race-baiting rhetoric in the past.
Sirota said in December, in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre, that a new profiling system should be established to monitor mentally-ill individuals, but that Republicans would not support that effort because it would mean profiling white men.
And to think it has even been fully implemented yet. This cannot be good.
By: John Hayward 4/18/2013 09:16 AM
Senator Max Baucus, one of the geniuses who perpetrated the ObamaCare disaster on America, just woke up and smelled the coffee. From the Associated Press:
“I just see a huge train wreck coming down,” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., told Obama’s health care chief during a routine budget hearing that suddenly turned tense.Baucus is the first top Democrat to publicly voice fears about the rollout of the new health care law, designed to bring coverage to some 30 million uninsured Americans through a mix of government programs and tax credits for private insurance that start next year.
“I just see a huge train wreck coming down,” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., told Obama’s health care chief during a routine budget hearing that suddenly turned tense.
Baucus is the first top Democrat to publicly voice fears about the rollout of the new health care law, designed to bring coverage to some 30 million uninsured Americans through a mix of government programs and tax credits for private insurance that start next year.
Baucus is up for re-election next year, and said to be in trouble, thanks to constituent displeasure with the health-care boondoggle he helped to write. The only thing better than blowing him out of office would be repealing ObamaCare before he goes. Speaking of which, the first of Barack Obama’s loyal union allies has broken ranks to call for the repeal of ObamaCare. From a statement by the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers, and Allied Workers:
Our Union and its members have supported President Obama and his Administration for both of his terms in office. But regrettably, our concerns over certain provisions in the ACA have not been addressed, or in some instances, totally ignored. In the rush to achieve its passage, many of the Act’s provisions were not fully conceived, resulting in unintended consequences that are inconsistent with the promise that those who were satisfied with their employer sponsored coverage could keep it.These provisions jeopardize our multi-employer health plans, have the potential to cause a loss of work for our members, create an unfair bidding advantage for those contractors who do not provide health coverage to their workers, and in the worst case, may cause our members and their families to lose the benefits they currently enjoy as participants in multi-employer health plans.For decades, our multi-employer health and welfare plans have provided the necessary medical coverage for our members and their families to protect them in times of illness and medical needs. This collaboration between labor and management has been a model of success that should be emulated rather than ignored. I refuse to remain silent, or idly watch as the ACA destroys those protections.I am therefore calling for repeal or complete reform of the Affordable Care Act to protect our employers, our industry, and our most important asset: our members and their families.
Our Union and its members have supported President Obama and his Administration for both of his terms in office. But regrettably, our concerns over certain provisions in the ACA have not been addressed, or in some instances, totally ignored. In the rush to achieve its passage, many of the Act’s provisions were not fully conceived, resulting in unintended consequences that are inconsistent with the promise that those who were satisfied with their employer sponsored coverage could keep it.
These provisions jeopardize our multi-employer health plans, have the potential to cause a loss of work for our members, create an unfair bidding advantage for those contractors who do not provide health coverage to their workers, and in the worst case, may cause our members and their families to lose the benefits they currently enjoy as participants in multi-employer health plans.
For decades, our multi-employer health and welfare plans have provided the necessary medical coverage for our members and their families to protect them in times of illness and medical needs. This collaboration between labor and management has been a model of success that should be emulated rather than ignored. I refuse to remain silent, or idly watch as the ACA destroys those protections.
I am therefore calling for repeal or complete reform of the Affordable Care Act to protect our employers, our industry, and our most important asset: our members and their families.
Back to the Associated Press, where we find Senator Baucus wrestling with top ObamaCare commissar Kathleen Sebelius:
Normally low-key and supportive, Baucus challenged Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at Wednesday’s hearing.He said he’s “very concerned” that new health insurance marketplaces for consumers and small businesses will not open on time in every state, and that if they do, they might just flop because residents don’t have the information they need to make choices.“The administration’s public information campaign on the benefits of the Affordable Care Act deserves a failing grade,” he told Sebelius. “You need to fix this.”Responding to Baucus, Sebelius pointedly noted that Republicans in Congress last year blocked funding for carrying out the health care law, and she had to resort to raiding other departmental funds that were legally available to her.The administration is asking for $1.5 billion in next year’s budget, and Republicans don’t seem willing to grant that either.“I don’t know what he’s looking at,” Sebelius told reporters following her out of the room after Baucus adjourned the hearing. “But we are on track to fully implement marketplaces in Jan. 2014, and to be open for open enrollment.”
Normally low-key and supportive, Baucus challenged Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at Wednesday’s hearing.
He said he’s “very concerned” that new health insurance marketplaces for consumers and small businesses will not open on time in every state, and that if they do, they might just flop because residents don’t have the information they need to make choices.
“The administration’s public information campaign on the benefits of the Affordable Care Act deserves a failing grade,” he told Sebelius. “You need to fix this.”
Responding to Baucus, Sebelius pointedly noted that Republicans in Congress last year blocked funding for carrying out the health care law, and she had to resort to raiding other departmental funds that were legally available to her.
The administration is asking for $1.5 billion in next year’s budget, and Republicans don’t seem willing to grant that either.
“I don’t know what he’s looking at,” Sebelius told reporters following her out of the room after Baucus adjourned the hearing. “But we are on track to fully implement marketplaces in Jan. 2014, and to be open for open enrollment.”
Those dratted Republicans and their cursed insistence on prudent government spending and personal liberty! This would all work great if they just authorized another few hundred billion zillion dollars in spending! Remember when con artists like Baucus, Sebelius, and Obama were trying to tell you ObamaCare would reduce the deficit?
As for what Baucus is looking at that might be making him (and more to the point, his constituents) nervous, it might be those ObamaCare sub-commanders crossing their fingers and hoping that the rollout isn’t “a third-world experience,” or small businesses turning away from the exchanges because the Politburo has already openly admitted that key functions won’t be online until 2015, or the admission – buried in Obama’s goofball budget proposal – that the People’s Glorious Revolutionary Health Care Exchanges will cost more than double their original projections, ballooning to $5.7 billion by 2014. That’s a lot of lettuce for a broken pile of junk that doesn’t work.
The roofers and waterproofers have it right. This has dragged on far too long already. Repeal ObamaCare now. The economy desperately needs that repeal – jobless claims are climbing once again this week, moving talk of a “recovery” further from hollow political rhetoric to outright delusion. Imagine the surge of free-market joy that would occur over the slain corpse of the rough beast that slouched from beneath Max Baucus’ pen!
War On Terror: As the administration slashed the domestic bombing prevention budget by 45%, a top military IED expert warned such devices were coming, and an al-Qaida chieftain advocated their use within U.S. borders.
Yes, it's too early to know if the bombing of the Boston Marathon was an act of foreign or domestic terrorism. But it's worth noting that one of the three devices in the May 2010 Times Square attempted bombing, for which the Pakistani Taliban took credit, was a pressure cooker bomb similar to those used to kill three and injure and maim some 173 others in Boston.
Pressure-cooker explosives have been used in international terrorism, and were recommended for lone-wolf operatives by al-Qaida's branch in Yemen, which gave a detailed description of how to make a bomb using a pressure cooker in a 2010 issue of Inspire, its English-language online publication aimed at would-be terrorists acting alone.
Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani-American, pled guilty to assembling a homemade bomb that nearly exploded in Times Square on May 1, 2010. Shahzad, who was sentenced to life in prison, reportedly attended a terrorist training camp in the province of Waziristan.
Naser Jason Abdo, a former U.S. soldier, was sentenced to life in prison last year after being convicted of planning to use a pair of bombs made from pressure cookers in an attack on a Texas restaurant frequented by soldiers from nearby Ft. Hood. He was found with the Inspire article.
Fort Hood is the Army base in Killeen, Texas, where Maj. Nidal Hasan, a self-proclaimed "Soldier of Allah" shouting "Allahu Akhbar," opened fire on fellow soldiers and civilians. Thirteen people were killed, including a pregnant soldier, and 32 others shot in the Nov. 5, 2009, rampage shamefully labeled by President Obama as an act not of terror, but of "workplace violence."
Of the Boston Marathon bombing, Obama finally said:
"Any time bombs are used to target innocent civilians, it's an act of terror," and he is right.
The price of liberty and life is eternal vigilance, which is why his cutting of the domestic bombing-prevention budget, according to the London Daily Mail, by 45% from what it was under President George W. Bush begs for an explanation. And we hope it's not to blame Republicans and sequestration.
Robert Liscouski, the first Homeland Security assistant secretary for infrastructure protection, told the Mail that "the Obama administration has continued to cut the budget for offices such as the Office for Bombing Prevention from $20 million started under Bush, to $11 million today.
Straight from the horses mouth. DHS has had increase after increase in it's budget year after year after year....it's strange, teabaggers and red staters want small " gubment " want less and less spent. Then when the nickle and dime seqester sets in and POTUS cuts air traffic contollers in Yuma Az and PEORIA they bitch and moan like a queen on Melrose after the john screws them without payment.
Want small gubment unless they don't want small gubment. It's a personality disorder Obama has to deal with in the likes of the crying bartender and the gang....yes the right is quite backwards, couldn't have titled this thread any better.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is the principal Federal agency charged with the vital missions of preventing terrorism and enhancing security, securing and managing America's borders, enforcing and administering immigration laws, safeguarding and securing cyberspace, and ensuring resilience to disasters. The Nation's security in these areas is not only critical to our safety, but also the continued growth of our economy and long-term global competitiveness. To support these missions, the President’s 2012 Budget provides $43.2 billion, an increase of $309 million (.7 percent) over 2010 actual funding levels. Increases were made in core homeland security functions such as border security and Coast Guard assets. Savings are achieved through the elimination of stove-piped and duplicative state and local grant programs, administrative costs, and professional contract services...
By DAVID PITT April 23, 2013 1:16PM
The men had health insurance from jobs at one of the nation’s largest pork producers. But neither had "legal permission" to live in the U.S., nor was it clear whether their insurance would pay for the long-term rehabilitation they needed.
So Iowa Methodist Medical Center in Des Moines took matters into its own hands: After consulting with the patients’ families, it quietly loaded the two comatose men onto a private jet that flew them back to Mexico, effectively deporting them without consulting any court or federal agency.
When the men awoke, they were more than 1,800 miles away in a hospital in Veracruz, on the Mexican Gulf Coast.
Hundreds of immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally have taken similar journeys through a little-known removal system run not by the federal government trying to enforce laws but by hospitals seeking to curb high costs. A recent report compiled by immigrant advocacy groups made a rare attempt to determine how many people are sent home, concluding that at least 600 immigrants were removed over a five-year period, though there were likely many more.
In interviews with immigrants, their families, attorneys and advocates, The Associated Press reviewed the obscure process known formally as “medical repatriation,” which allows hospitals to put patients on chartered international flights, often while they are still unconscious. Hospitals typically pay for the flights.
“The problem is it’s all taking place in this unregulated sort of a black hole ... and there is no tracking,” said law professor Lori Nessel, director of the Center for Social Justice at Seton Hall Law School, which offers free legal representation to immigrants.
Now advocates for immigrants are concerned that hospitals could soon begin expanding the practice after full implementation of federal health care reform, which will make deep cuts to the payments hospitals receive for taking care of the uninsured.
Health care executives say they are caught between a requirement to accept all patients and a political battle over immigration.
“It really is a Catch-22 for us,” said Dr. Mark Purtle, vice president of Medical Affairs for Iowa Health System, which includes Iowa Methodist Medical Center. “This is the area that the federal government, the state, everybody says we’re not paying for the undocumented.”
Hospitals are legally mandated to care for all patients who need emergency treatment, regardless of citizenship status or ability to pay. But once a patient is stabilized, that funding ceases, along with the requirement to provide care. Many immigrant workers without citizenship are ineligible for Medicaid, the government’s insurance program for the poor and elderly.
That’s why hospitals often try to send those patients to rehabilitation centers and nursing homes back in their home countries.
Civil rights groups say the practice violates U.S. and international laws and unfairly targets one of the nation’s most defenseless populations.
“They don’t have advocates, and they don’t have people who will speak on their behalf,” said Miami attorney John De Leon, who has been arguing such cases for a decade.
Estimating the number of cases is difficult since no government agency or organization keeps track.
The Center for Social Justice and New York Lawyers for the Public Interest have documented at least 600 immigrants who were involuntarily removed in the past five years for medical reasons. The figure is based on data from hospitals, humanitarian organizations, news reports and immigrant advocates who cited specific cases. But the actual number is believed to be significantly higher because many more cases almost certainly go unreported.
Some patients who were sent home subsequently died in hospitals that weren’t equipped to meet their needs. Others suffered lingering medical problems because they never received adequate rehabilitation, the report said.
Gail Montenegro, a spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said the agency “plays no role in a health care provider’s private transfer of a patient to his or her country of origin.”
Such transfers “are not the result of federal authority or action,” she said in an email, nor are they considered “removals, deportations or voluntary departures” as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The two Mexican workers in Iowa came to the U.S. in search of better jobs and found work at Iowa Select Farms, which provided them with medical insurance even though they had no visas or other immigration documents.
Cruz had been here for about six months, Rodriguez-Saldana for a little over a year. The men were returning home from a fishing trip in May 2008 when their car was struck by a semitrailer truck. Both were thrown from the vehicle and suffered serious head injuries.
Insurance paid more than $100,000 for the two men’s emergency treatment. But it was unclear whether the policies would pay for long-term rehabilitation. Two rehabilitation centers refused to take them.
Eleven days after the car crash, the two men were still comatose as they were carried aboard a jet bound for Veracruz, where a hospital had agreed to take them.
Rodriguez-Saldana, now 39, said the Des Moines hospital told his family that he was unlikely to survive and should be sent home.
The hospital “doesn’t really want Mexicans,” he said in a telephone interview with the AP. “They wanted to disconnect me so I could die. They said I couldn’t survive, that I wouldn’t live.”
Hospital officials said they could not discuss the case because of litigation. The men and their families filed a lawsuit in 2010 claiming they received minimal rehabilitative care in Veracruz.
A judge dismissed the lawsuit last year ruling that Iowa Methodist was not to blame for the inadequate care in Veracruz. The courts also found that even though the families of the men may not have consented to their transport to Mexico, they also failed to object to it. An appeals court upheld the dismissal.
Patients are frequently told family members want them to come home. In cases where the patient is unconscious or can’t communicate, relatives are told their loved one wants to return, De Leon said.
Sometimes they’re told the situation is dire, and the patient may die, prompting many grief-stricken relatives to agree to a transfer, he said.
Some hospitals “emotionally extort family members in their home country,” De Leon said. “They make family members back home feel guilty so they can simply put them on a plane and drop them off at the airport.”
In court documents, Iowa hospital officials said they had received permission from Saldana’s parents and Cruz’s long-term partner for the flight to Mexico. Family members deny they gave consent.
There’s no way to know for sure whether the two men would have recovered faster or better in the United States. But the accident left both of them with life-altering disabilities.
Nearly five years later, the 49-year-old Cruz is paralyzed on his left side, the result of damage to his hip and spine. He has difficulty speaking and can’t work.
“I can’t even walk,” he said in a telephone interview, breaking into tears several times. His long-term partner, Belem, said he’s more emotional since the accident.
“He feels bad because he went over there and came back like this,” she said. “Now he can’t work at all. ... He cries a lot.”
She works selling food and cleaning houses. Their oldest son, 22, sometimes contributes to the family income.
Rodriguez-Saldana said he has to pay for intensive therapy for his swollen feet and bad circulation. He also said he walks poorly and has difficulty working. He sells home supplies such as kitchen and bath towels and dishes, a business that requires a lot of walking and visiting houses. He often forgets where he lives, but people recognize him on the street and take him home because he’s confused.
The American Hospital Association said it does not have a specific policy governing immigrant removals, and it does not track how many hospitals encounter the issue.
Nessel expects medical removals to increase with implementation of health care reform, which makes many more patients eligible for Medicaid. As a result, the government plans to cut payments to hospitals that care for the uninsured.
Some hospitals call immigration authorities when they receive patients without immigration documentation, but the government rarely responds, Nessel said. Taking custody of the patient would also require the government to assume financial responsibility for care.
Jan Stipe runs the Iowa Methodist department that finds hospitals in patients’ native countries that are willing to take them. The hospital’s goal, she said, is to “get patients back to where their support systems are, their loved ones who will provide the care and the concern that each patient needs.”
The American Medical Association’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs issued a strongly worded directive to doctors in 2009, urging them not to “allow hospital administrators to use their significant power and the current lack of regulations” to send patients to other countries.
Doctors cannot expect hospitals to provide costly uncompensated care to patients indefinitely, the statement said. “But neither should physicians allow hospitals to arbitrarily determine the fate of an uninsured noncitizen immigrant patient.”
Arturo Morales, a Monterrey, Mexico, lawyer who helps Cruz and Rodriguez-Saldana with legal issues, is convinced the men would have been better off staying in Iowa.
“I have no doubt,” he said. “You have a patient who doesn’t have money to pay you. You can’t let them die.”
Yeah right...let the American taxpayers pay for their long term care. And you wonder how many times this sad story is repeated across the country.