Laughter is good medicine and that makes Wesley Clark my podiatrist. If you saw Drudge yesterday you'll know what I'm talking about. Not only is the picture funny, but you'll also find out that Clark was recently (May, 2001) praising the Bush team: Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld.
So in honor of that, let's do a caption contest. Here's your subject. It may be familiar to you.
Let them in the comments boxes.
The Catholic League points out that megainvestor Warren Buffett is one of the top donors to the organization "Catholics for a Free Choice". Get that? He's a non-Catholic, a zealot for population-control causes, and he's financing a deceitful group that attacks Catholic teaching. Nice to know who your friends aren't.
Now he's the financial advisor to candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger. I don't want to make Arnold guilty by association, but (a) Arnold's already declared himself in favor of abortion and the gay agenda, and (b) electing a candidate does mean electing a pack of advisors too.
Is any of the prominent candidates for governor of California at all pro-life?
I found a great t-shirt while surfing the web over the weekend. It said, Guns don’t kill people, abortion kills people. I hope it arrives in time for my parents’ next visit. You see, my mom is a civil lawyer, a feminist and a Canadian. By contrast, I am a canon lawyer, a traditional Catholic and a legal resident of the United States. To the chagrin of my father, also a lawyer, bickering over gun control or abortion is a favorite past-time when talking to my mother.
While going another round over the phone with mom the other day, she appealed to the obligatory statistics. You know the ones – basically the number of violent gun crimes in the United States versus the number in Canada. Of course, liberal proponents of the nanny state feel these statistics vindicate their position. Perhaps these social leftists feel residual guilt over having abandoned their children to daycare facilities as they pursue their career. I know not. But never mind personal responsibility and civil liberties, social liberalism makes for a kinder and gentler state.
Or does it? After stumbling upon this t-shirt, the time was ripe for my own statistical analysis – not for my sake, but for my mother’s. Tough love works both ways in the parent-child relationship; just as friends don’t let friends vote for Bill, good sons don’t allow their mothers to parrot Hillary. But enough musing about my family; when compared to the statistics on gun violence, the abortion issue speaks for itself. In short, liberals kill more people than guns.
According to some statistics I picked up from a number of American proponents of stricter gun control (therefore they must be true since liberals don’t lie about these things), in 1995 there were 35,957 gun related deaths in America. The number of gun homicides numbered 15,835. Given America’s population of 264 million, this is approximately one gun homicide for every 16,672 members of the American population. Canada, with a population of 29 million, suffered 1,189 gun related deaths during the same year, of which 176 were homicide. Thus the gun homicide ratio north of the border is one for every 164,773 people living in Canada – about one tenth that of the United States.
In contrast, according to the 1997 United Nations’ Demographic Yearbook, people in Canada procured 70,549 abortions in 1995. This is approximately one abortion for every 411 Canadian residents. Stated another way, for every gun homicide in Canada, there are 401 abortions. The Canadian child in the womb will no doubt take comfort in the kindness and gentility of the strict gun control laws governing our socialist state – that is, if she survives to birth. One should not assume. Just ask the 70,549 victims of Canada’s liberal abortion policy.
The statistics for the United States are no less telling. In 1997, under the ever-compassionate leadership of Bill and Hillary, 1,210,883 American babies were aborted. Statistically, this represents one abortion for every 218 residents of the United States of America. While the American ratio of abortions to gun homicides is much lower than in Canada, it is no less lopsided: 76 to 1. Of course, we seldom hear this statistic from liberal statists.
So next time you run into a liberal proponent of the compassionate nanny state, which usually means restricted gun ownership and unrestricted abortion, remember the t-shirt. Guns don’t kill people, abortion clinics do.
From the Washington Times:
Hillary incensed over Chinese censorship
The former first lady is demanding a recall of the Chinese edition of her memoir "Living History," which, translated into Mandarin, contains none of her criticisms of China's human rights record.
He is so unserious and self-contradictory that I can barely muster any strong feelings toward him, but attention must be paid to Howard Dean. At least for the moment, until he has an aneurysm from being so darn angry all the time.
The article says Dean is "focusing his criticism squarely on Bush, whom he said was dividing Americans by race, class, religion and sexual orientation." How's this for inclusive rhetoric:
"This democracy and the flag of the United States do not belong to Rush Limbaugh, and Jerry Falwell, and Tom DeLay, and John Ashcroft, and Dick Cheney," Dean said as he listed prominent conservatives. "This flag and this country belong to us and we want our country back."
Did he mean the flag doesn't only belong to Rush et al.? Because surely the flag is just as much the property of Jerry Fallwell as it is Howard Dean or any of his sandaled followers.
Dean doesn't think fundamentalist Christians are Americans, either:
I want my country back. We want our country back. I am tired of being divided. I don’t want to listen to the fundamentalist preachers anymore. I want America to look like America. Where we are all included, hand in hand, walking down. We have dream. We can only reach the dream if we are all together – black and white, gay and straight, man and woman.
...unless you're one of those creepy snake-handling Christians, in which case you can go to hell.
Speaking of creepy, here is Nietzsche's Superman advocating bad policy in the same speech:
We have made Medicaid into a middle class entitlement. If you made $52,000 a year or less in Vermont everybody under 18 in your family is entitled to Medicaid...if you are at the upper-end of that, we charge $50 a month...Now, if we can do that in a small rural state which is 26th in income in the entire country, surely the most wealthy and powerful society on the face of the earth can grant all of its citizens healthcare. I am a governor and I am a doctor and I have done it.
How magnanimous! His Excellency Governor Dean, ruling a population the size of Milwaukee, "granted" his subjects "free" healthcare. As Pete Vere said in a previous post, free healthcare ain't free, and Dean didn't mention that Vermont has the highest per-capita tax burden of any U.S. state.
In Vermont we have conserved hundreds of thousands of acres that will never be developed, and I might add Mr. President, they’re never going to be drilled on either.
Has there been a recent stampede to exploit the vast oil deposits of Vermont? One that was manfully resisted by Governor Dean?
For sheer head-scratching nuttiness, my favorite quotation is from two weeks ago, from a speech at the University of Maryland--
"Let's talk about that middle class tax cut," Dean said. "Tell me how much your tuition went up last year. Tell them how much your parents’ property taxes went up. That was money taken from the middle class and given to Ken Lay and the boys who ran Enron."
I don't know how they do things across the river in Maryland, but our property taxes went up because our house is worth a lot more than it was last year. The Johnsons consider that a good thing.
Literally, this is what he's saying:
1. Last year, the Republicans figured out how to siphon off tuition money paid to the University of Maryland, and tax money sent to the Treasurer of Maryland, and stick it in a Federal account.
2. The Republicans then ordered the U.S. Treasury to write one of those yellow Statue of Liberty checks, payable to "KENNETH LAY AND THE BOYS AT ENRON."
3. This was accomplished through a middle-class tax cut that did not take effect until more than a year after Enron declared bankruptcy, and "Ken Lay and the boys" were out on their ears.
Like lots of people who are more knowledgeable than me, I don't think Howard Dean will be president, and I don't know that he'll even get the Democratic nomination. Then again, I always thought everyone must surely see right through Bill Clinton, and he wouldn't stand a chance.
[Quotations were edited for spelling and grammar.]
Please keep John Pacheco in prayer. This Wednesday, as the candidate for the Family Coalition Party, John will be debating Dalton McGuinty, who happens to be the leader of the Ontario provincial Liberal Party and a Catholic who has capitulated on more social issues than Nancy Pelosi. Unfortunately, Dalton's experienced a recent surge in the polls, despite being a notoriously bad campaigner, and he now stands to become the next Premier of Ontario (Canada's most populous province.)
Turns out that Svend Robinson, the first Canadian homosexual member of parliament (who belongs to the socialist party, of course...) has another hobby when he's not heckling President Ronald Reagan (and threatening to do the same should President Bush visit Canada), sucking up to the Taliban, pushing through homosexual marriage legislation and trying to get the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church branded hate literature. He poses for in the buff for an on-line gay calendar. [Warning: Make sure there are no minors around when you visit the aforementioned link!]
Well folks, after this past week, Canada has now fallen behind enemy lines in the culture war. We've also shed our last vestiges of democracy and laid the foundation for a future religious persecution at the hands of the Sexual Revolt. First off, a motion to protect the traditional definition of marriage as "between a man and a woman" was narrowly defeated in our federal legislature. The Bill C-250 passed the following day (Thursday), which adds "sexual orientation" to the Canadian Code of Criminal Law in such narrow terms that basically the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church now fulfill the legal definition of hate literature. Lifesite News provides a pretty good roundup of the situation. Meanwhile, all is not lost... John Pacheco continues to soldier on in the provincial election. However, I'm on the verge of seeking US citizenship.
Time, the once-great magazine that has shrunk to 12 pages a week, has an interview with Madeleine Albright on the occasion of her new book. Like every memoir by a former Clintonoid, I won't read it -- I tend to shy away from fiction -- so I rely on articles and reviews to tell me what to think of it.
Reading the interview, I thought, "Was tact a disqualification for a job in the Clinton administration?" I don't recall anyone from Bush the Elder's gang going out of their way to trash the Clintons; maybe there were a few, but they didn't make themselves as obnoxious as these people. We're not just talking about mid-level appointees trying to make a name for themselves, we're talking about cabinet members all the way up to Bill and his lovely wife, Bruno.
Back to Madame Albright: the interview is very short, but it's packed with howlers, such as "President Clinton focused on terrorism from the start," and "Frankly, if there was a President Gore, we wouldn't be in this particular mess." There are several other questionable statements, like "Iraq is in fact a breeding ground for terrorists" (more accurately, it's a magnet for terrorists as few of them seem to be homegrown.)
One nasty answer particularly stood out --
(Q) Bush's foreign policy started as "Anything But Clinton" in almost every area—the Middle East, North Korea, China. Now events have pushed it back much closer to your approach. Do you ever succumb to schadenfreude?(A) No, I'm much too kind and generous a person.
Because I'm kind and generous myself, I will not point out that Madame Albright looks like Ursula the Sea Witch from "The Little Mermaid." Instead, I will let you decide.
|
|
|
|
(Original joke made in 1997 by Steve Schultz when Albright was named secretary of state. Photos edited by me. Original photos (c) ???? whoever owns them.)
Michelle Malkin has a dead-on column about all the people who are impeding the war on terror at the local, state, and federal level. I would disagree that their resistance constitutes "spitting on their graves," but it does endanger the living.
Last night on PBS (yes, I do watch PBS on rare occasions) they had a BBC special on Sept. 11, focusing on the government response to it. One of the things the Federal government did was seal the borders. I thought, "If they can seal the borders for one day, why couldn't they do it every day?" They must have meant closing down border crossings. Whatever they did, two of the most significant things we could do are to seal the borders against illegal aliens, and deport illegal aliens who are here, with a high priority placed on countries that export crops of terrorists (Saudi Arabia, Syria, Colombia).
Neither one is going to happen, because the Bush administration doesn't have the guts to stand up to the Diversity Uber Alles crowd. That virtually ensures another terrorist attack from foreigners. For the sake of their own sense of moral superiority, the Left, along with far too many irresponsible folks on the Right, has decided that any new law-enforcement measure is ipso facto one more move toward a police state. No matter how innocuous the plan, such as classifying air passengers by the risk they pose, the reaction is the same as if the feds abolished the Bill of Rights.
Some people apparently think that law enforcement is like a sport, and neither team should have a particular advantage over the other one. Like I said, this silliness isn't limited to the Left.
David A. Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, worries that the computer screening program will go beyond its original goals. "This system is not designed just to get potential terrorists," Keene said. "It's a law enforcement tool. The wider the net you cast, the more people you bring in."
Aaack! The cops might catch MORE CRIMINALS! Why, if this plan goes through, CRIMINALS MIGHT NOT EVEN TRAVEL BY PLANE ANYMORE! How will they get to visit their relatives in other states? Let us rend our garments.
(Our bishops aren't too helpful here. Has anyone seen a statement from any U.S. prelate with even the mildest rebuke for immigration violators? Everything I've seen from the bishops says that all of our immigration laws are immoral, more or less.)
I've been mentally preparing an essay called "The emerging anti-anti-terrorism," about the backlash against the war on terror. So much of this new phenomenon is identified as anti-war or anti-Bush activity, but we're seeing an intellectual movement that is rapidly becoming an ideology. Just as the premise of anti-anti-Communism was that Americans had an "inordinate fear of Communism," as Jimmy "Ask Me about My Foreign Policy Successes!" Carter put it, anti-anti-terrorists don't think that terrorism poses a particular threat to the U.S., or at least not one we ought to get excited about. We'll see if I get around to writing it. (Not that you probably care too much -- I'm throwing it out there to see if it sounds interesting to anyone.)
[I typed a response to something Mark Shea posted, and I realized it was long enough to make it blog-worthy.]
...The Pope asks, "When will these conflicts cease? When will people finally see a reconciled world? We will not facilitate the peace process by allowing, with guilty indifference, injustice and to prosper in our planet."
The alternative to going to war with Iraq was to let Saddam's regime in place, free to murder political opponents, imprison the innocent, and instill a generalized terror into the population. Leaving aside whether it was ultimately prudent to go to war against Iraq -- the answer to that question will become clearer with the passage of time -- it was a net advance for the causes of human freedom and worldly justice.
I say this with sadness, because my deep regard for this pope was one of the factors in my conversion to Catholicism, but if the U.S. and U.K. had followed his advice (and that of the majority of the world's bishops), the mass killings, unjust imprisonments, and general terror would still be in place in Iraq. Qusay would have succeeded Saddam, and this wretchedness would proceed for another generation.
I agree that the world, and particularly the West, is in the grip of a Culture of Death. I agree that we suffer from amnesia about our human nature and relationship to God. I agree that the key to renewing the world is to dedicate ourselves to Jesus Christ and live as he would have us live. In short, I agree with the Holy Father's critique of the West.
However, in this matter, I believe that the war was justified on humanitarian grounds alone. The weak are not preyed upon by the strong, and the guiltless prisoners are out of their jails. A massively corrupt government no longer threatens its neighbors. Isn't that enough?
This is Alex Cassar. Alex is the VP of the Family Coalition Party. Earlier today, Alex stopped by Catholic Light and kindly clarified his party's platform about lowering taxation for families. (The FCP is the party for which our very own John Pacheco from St Blog's is running.) So why aren't you running Alex? You would make a good candidate yourself!
The Santa Cruz, California city council, a dues-paying corporate member of the Loony Left, weighs in with a proposal to impeach President Bush. Is it for lying under oath? Trying to suppress evidence in a civil trial? Suborning perjury? No, he apparently "violated international treaties by going to war in Iraq, and that the president manipulated public fears to justify the war and undercut Constitutional rights."
If "manupulating public fears" is an impeachable offense, then no Democrat is fit to serve in Congress, because every two years they try to scare old people into thinking the Republicans are going to take away their Social Security and Medicare. Also, the U.S. has never signed an international treaty precluding it from making war; if that happened, it didn't make the headlines.
This "movement" was founded by a University of Illinois law professor named Francis Boyle. He comments, "President Bush wants to waste another $87 billion in Iraq....That could pay for a lot of stop signs in Santa Cruz." Or psychiatric hospitals, which are in perpetual short supply in the Golden State.
Tonight on NRO, lots of great stuff:
Stephen Moore writes about all the trouble with Tom Daschle's mansion on Foxhall Road in Washington DC. I used to drive down Foxhall all the time to get to American U, so I've seen how the other half lives.
Also, The Krugman Truth Squad strikes again. They even gave Tim Russert some ammo this time.
SHAMELESS SELF-PROMO ALERT!
California is not the only place suffering from election shennanigans right now, as true conservatives debate over whether they should support Arnold. Ontario, which is Canada's largest province, is also going through an interesting election. In my latest Enter Stage Right column, I share why social and fiscal conservatives should not be scared to vote Family Coalition Party as an alternative to the Progressive Conservatives, even though it will likely mean splitting the right. Here's a juicy excerpt from "Not Just For So-Cons: Why Fiscal Conservatives Should Vote Family Coalition Party in Ontario":
In fact, one of the things I find interesting about the Family Coalition Party is that unlike many other social conservatives I come across, the party resists the temptation of paleo-conservative protectionism. According to their campaign literature, the FCP "supports the long-term removal of all measures that insulate industries, businesses, financial institutions, professions and trade unions from domestic and foreign competition." In this sense, the FCP appears much more in tune with the global thinking of modern conservatism than the federal PCs under David Orchard.
Thus the FCP's social conservative roots provide for solid fiscal conservative policy. The party clearly explains this correlation in their policy handbook. "The family has an important and necessary role in protecting and nurturing life," one reads. "This role makes the family, rather than the individual, the basic building block of our society. When families are strong and prosperous, democracy and economic enterprise flourish. Strong families lessen problems in many areas of society; e.g.: marital separations, child abuse, teenage rebellion leading to alcohol and drug abuse, teenage pregnancies, runaways, school drop-outs, vandalism, theft and violence. Strong family ties and stable relationships are economically and socially beneficial, leading to fewer cases of single parents, better job stability, more productive members of society and decreased welfare costs."
Because strong families make for a robust and free-market economy, and vice-versa, the Family Coalition Party proposes an education policy more in tune with the free market than the current status – or should I say statist? – quo. "The state should not push its own political agenda onto children in classrooms," the policy manual states. "Choice is to education what competition is to business. It unleashes the pent-up creativity of educators, in response to consumer demands. Just as competition works to improve quality and lower prices, so taxpayers will save money when parents are allowed to choose in the education marketplace. Choice is the catalyst that will drive other school reforms -- it will spark innovations in teaching, management, and learning."
Well, he's not Ann Coulter, but St. Blog's very own John Pacheco has thrown his hat into the upcomming provincial election in Ontario. John's running for the Family Coalition Party, which with the homosexual marriage issue still fresh in people's minds, has the potential to break into major party status this election. (FCP is already the largest of Ontario's fringe parties and has been steadilly gaining for years.) John's playing a particularly important role for the FCP, in that in Canadian politics the leader of the party must run for legislative office. John's running against Dalton Camp, leader of the Ontario Liberal Party. Dalton, as I previously mentioned, has the backbone of a paralyzed squid. You can stop and visit John's campaign website at Pacheco.ca. Please keep John in prayer and offer him encouragement.
With a couple elections looming or in full gear, there's a number of interesting comments over at Musings, the weblog of Enter Stage Right. Many of them concern the sorry state of conservative politics in Canada. I can sympathize, particularly with regards to the provincial election in Ontario. Although she has gotten somewhat of a bad rap across St. Blog in recent weeks, what we really need in Canada is a visit from Ann Coulter.
Let's look at the leaders of the three major parties. Ernie Eves is the current Premier of Ontario and the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. (Keep in mind this party tends to emphasize the adjective more than the noun). He's currently shacked up with some woman who heads a state-funded television station. He's also flip-flopped on the gay marriage issue. Fiscally, he's nowhere as brave as his predecessor. So basically, if Ernie Eves were an American politician, he would be the 1996 election campaign -- he's got the morality of Bill Clinton and the fiscal policy and charisma of Bob Dole.
Moving on to Dalton McGuinty, Jr., head of the liberal party. Dalton became MPP when his father, Dalton McGuinty, Sr., suffered an untimely death during his term of office as a Liberal member of provincial parliament. Dalton Sr. was a good Catholic and solid pro-lifer. Dalton Camp Sr. can justly be compared to Democrat Governor Bob Casey who stood up to Clinton over the abortion issue. McGuinty Jr., unfortunately, never seemed to have come out of a teenage rebellion and thus couldn't wait to jettison his father's moral legacy. I cannot really compare Junior to any American politician -- it's hard to envision Janet Reno as effeminate, but calling Junior a Kennedy Catholic would concede too much orthodoxy. Regardless, Dalton McGuinty Jr. is the type of politician that would make you seriously consider voting for Jesse Jackson if he were the only alternative.
The last of the three major leaders is Howard Hampton, leader of the socialist NDP. Howie's basically a cross between Grimace from the McDonald's commercials in terms of personality and Al Sharpton in terms of policy. What distinguishes him from Dalton in terms of leadership is that Howie is at least honest.
PFC Jessica Lynch, former soldier, is getting a million bucks for telling "her story" in a forthcoming book. She says she doesn't remember the attack on her convoy, the accident that caused her massive injuries, or much of her captivity. Considering she's only 20 years old, that ought to be a short biography.
The father of one soldier killed in the convoy attack, Randy Kiehl, doesn't think Lynch should be profiting from her comrades' deaths. At last, someone in his position is willing to question the canonization of Jessica Lynch. As I wrote before, I wish her well, but I don't think her experiences were more praiseworthy than others.
Lynch ought to donate that money to charity, or better yet to the dependents the dead soldiers left behind. May God rest the soul of your son, Mr. Kiehl, and comfort you.
Miguel Estrada, a Catholic of Honduran ancestry, withdrew his name from consideration to the Federal bench yesterday. Nobody thought that Estrada was unqualified. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law and his resume is impeccable. But he's not liberal, so he's now one more Romanist scalp the Democrats can nail to their Senate office walls.
This summer, Democrats have defended themselves against charges that they are anti-Catholic, since they are stalling many of Bush's nominees and a lot of them are Catholic. They're right in that they are not merely anti-Catholic: they are prejudiced against any Christian who holds to the ancient faith. Specifically, they're afraid that nominating traditional believers might threaten the One Big Thing they have written into the foundation of their part. Recall the gauntlet they put John Ashcroft through when he was nominated, and how he remains their whipping boy because he PRAYS IN HIS OFFICE before his workday begins!
The Dems haven't presented any evidence that these snake-handling nominees will disregard the law; the simple fact that someone has "deeply held [Christian] beliefs" is enough. You may reply that the Republicans did the same thing to President W.J. Clinton. You would be wrong. They did indeed stall many of his nominees, and even blackballed a few (both tactics have a long, venerable history in the Senate). However, the GOP could have rejected Clinton's judicial nominees on solid grounds, because in 1992 Clinton promised to only nominate judges who would uphold Roe vs. Wade. Regardless of the merits of the case in front of them, they would rule in favor of the abortion license, widely construed. Imagine if a judge said before confirmation that he would uphold all death penalty sentences, regardless of the facts.
Senate Republicans, remarkably, discovered their collective spines and are firing back. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, himself the victim of these smarmy tactics, has been pressing the nomination of Alabama Attorney General Pryor, another Catholic. Pryor made the mistake of opposing the One Big Thing in print, even in cases of rape or incest. In a Judiciary Committee hearing, Sessions said:
"Well, let me tell you, the doctrine that abortion is not justified for rape and incest is Catholic doctrine. It is a position of the pope and it's a position of the Catholic Church in unity. So are we saying that if you believe in that principle, you can't be a federal judge? Is that what we're saying? And are we not saying, then, good Catholics need not apply?"
Democrats on the committee, which has a depressing number of rabidly pro-abortion Catholics, went nuts. When one of them said that Sessions, a Protestant, had no right to tell them what Catholics do and don't believe, he shot back, "Some Catholics don't believe in Catholic doctrine."
Right on, brother Sessions! (Read the account of the exchange here.)
This shows -- if you needed more evidence -- that Evangelicals are the best friends of faithful Catholics in the culture today. I'd rather be governed by Southern Baptists than secular liberals. As long as they don't prohibit me from going to Mass, spreading my faith, or buying wine, I would be happy to let them take over.
Republicans should put Miguel Estrada's face in campaign ads next year. The Democrats pretend that they're the party of inclusion and acceptance, but they're the ones rejecting people on the basis of religion and ethnicity. Throw it back in their faces.
Canadians are raised to believe that our universal and socialized healthcare system is superior to the healthcare system in America. In fact, this is a topic of frequent debate in our family because my parents still believe it. Even Canadian conservatives have long accepted this claim as fact. In my latest Enter Stage Right column, I compare our family's experience with the healthcare systems in both countries.
Here's an excerpt: "Yet Canadians forget that our universal health system is not free; it comes from the high taxes our government collects. In contrast, I pay no Florida state income tax under Governor Jeb Bush. And what about President George W. Bush, the Governor's brother, who recently lowered my federal tax rate? Dare I mention that before President Bush's tax cuts, I still paid a lot less in taxes each year than what my best friend and former accountant from back home tells me I would have paid as a Canadian resident under Jean Chretien's regime?
"Now add the fact my wife is a stay at home mother and the U.S. tax code permits joint tax returns for married couple. In contrast, as many Canadian social conservatives so aptly point out, the Canadian tax code penalizes married couples. And the premiums I pay for family health coverage in the United States are deducted from my taxable income. Thus when my wife and I add up what we pay each year in taxes, health insurance premiums and deductibles for medical services, we would pay more in taxes if we still lived in the Dominion of Socialized Healthcare."
