Emergency room waits have increased 36% between 1997 and 2004, according to a study released yesterday by Health Affairs. It’s safe to say the trend has continued since then. According to the WSJ coverage, researchers chalk it up to ER closings and “increased volume”. (Waits Grow in Emergency Rooms, by Theo Francis, Health Blog of the Wall Street Journal 01-15-08)

If “increased volume” is supposed to be a euphemism for “overwhelming numbers of illegal immigrants”, then I’d say they’re right on target. I’ve been to the ER twice in the past five years, and both times I was the only non-Spanish speaker in the waiting room. And, I’d like to add, the only one with an emergency. The rest were runny noses and sprained ankles.

While Theo Francis and the WSJ seem to gloss over the critical factor that illegal aliens play in both the ER closings and increased volume, the blog’s readers do not.

A few choice comments:

Common Sense?: “Another study that misses the boat….ER’s closing and increased volume=longer waits…the genius Researchers ignore the truth due to their idiot PS-ness. It is the ILLEGAL Alien and Welfare suckers that are forced on the Tax burdened Citizens and the WSJ open border fools just refuse to see the cause and effect…”

Anonymous: “A wonderful system of coverage by specialists of the ERs has been annihilated by the crooked trial lawyers (jackpot justice lawsuits) and the breath-takingly incompetent federal bureaucrats (EMTALA, ever declining Medicaid/Medicare reimbursements, the destruction of primary care, and refusal to enforce immigration laws)…”

David: “Obviously that 20 million illegal aliens played a big role in ER delay.”

Is there any hope that the WSJ pays attention to any of this direct feedback from readers?

The evil character recently arrested for child rape in Chandler, Arizona, is an illegal alien. Santana Batiz Aceves preyed upon children, raping four girls aged 12 to 15 and attempting to assault two others.

As Chandler residents regroup following a man’s arrest in the rapes that terrorized the city for 18 months, immigration advocates are bracing for the angry tide over illegal immigration to wash over the Valley again.

From talk radio to lunch-time talk, Santana Batiz Aceves’ status as a Mexican national who was deported twice before his weekend arrest in the “Chandler Rapist” case will be cited by both those who advocate a hard-line stance on immigration and those who are sympathetic to the plight of undocumented immigrants.

Experts agree that as details of the reported series of attacks on young girls emerge, they will harden the public’s attitude toward illegal immigrants - especially [Arrest in Chandler Rapist case may fuel debate, Arizona Republic, Jan 14, 2008] because assaults against children are among the worst types of crimes, they say.

The article above doesn’t use the term “backlash” (such as, “Hispanic residents fear a backlash because of the crimes”), but that’s the real topic in a word.

As I’ve written before (e.g. Backlash Fears in Virginia Beach), every arrest of a non-American criminal for a horrendous crime elicits a flurry of media interest in a backlash. The idea is that we awful Americans generalize unfairly about every member of the ethnic group of the perp — with the implication that lynch mobs can’t be far behind.

But if American citizens notice the genuinely high incidence of crime among illegal aliens — particularly sexual assaults and deaths from drunk driving — what’s wrong with that? Public policy should be based on facts, not kumbaya illusions of world peace through erasing borders.

Furthermore, 12 serial sex offenders cross the U.S. border illegally every day, according to a 2006 Department of Homeland Security report. Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime and open borders endanger all citizens. The Chandler rapist is one example out of many.

Obama has made a big deal over the years out of his being a churchgoer rather than the ultra-educated agnostic he looks like — it’s crucial to his viability as a candidate for President. But that naturally raises questions about what kind of church he picked out for himself 21 years ago.

After all, an enormous amount of talk has been devoted to, say, Mitt Romney and his church, even though Romney was born into being a Mormon. In contrast, Obama knew dozens of Chicago pastors through his ethnic organizing job, but, when he figured out that he had to belong to a church to have an effective political future on the South Side, he shopped around and chose Rev. Wright’s church.

It’s not exactly a secret that Obama’s Rev. Wright is a radical leftist black racialist. Wright calls his stance “black liberation theology” and relates it to Nicaraguan Marxist liberation theology. But I doubt if 2% of the voters know that. The media haven’t been in any hurry to alert the voters, perhaps because Obama’s supporters have tried to brand the Scarlet R on anyone who mentions anything about Obama other than that he will bring us together to bring about change. (Just as there has been more coverage of Romney’s great-grandfather’s polygamy than of Obama’s father’s polygamy, even though Obama has emphasized his family background so heavily to get nice white people to make nice assumptions about how nice it must have been for Obama to come from a nice mixed race home, even though, in fact, his parents’ bigamous marriage was a short-lived disaster that traumatized him psychologically for decades.)

Furthermore, reading Obama’s account in his autobiography, it’s evident that Obama’s concern was not whether Wright was, say, the far left blowhard that he appears to be, but whether Wright’s church was leftist enough for Obama. Or was it too bourgeois for Obama? (Not that the preppie from paradise has a non-bourgeois bone in his body, but he was against the bourgeoisie in theory.)

Obama recounts his first encounter with Trinity’s “Black Value System:”

“A sensible, heartfelt list … There was one particular passage in Trinity’s brochure that stood out, though, a commandment more self-conscious in its tone, requiring greater elaboration. ‘A Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness,’ the heading read. ‘While it is permissible to chase ‘middleincomeness’ will all our might,’ the text stated, those blessed with the talent or good fortunes to achieve success in the American mainstream must avoid the ‘psychological entrapment of Black “middleclassness” that hypnotizes the successful brother or sister into believing they are better than the rest and teaches them to think in terms of “we” and “they” instead of “US.”‘”

“My thoughts would often return to that declaration in the weeks that followed …”

Then, when the Ivy Leaguer meets Wright, he interrogates Wright about whether his church isn’t secretly too middle class for him:

“‘Some people say,’ I interrupted, ‘that the church is too upwardly mobile.’

“The reverend’s smile faded. ‘That’s a lot of bull,’ he said sharply…

“Still, I couldn’t help wondering … Would the interest in maintaining such unity [between the black classes] allow Reverend Wright to take a forceful stand on the latest proposals to reform public housing. And if men like Reverend Wright failed to take a stand, if churches like Trinity refused to engage with real power and risk genuine conflict, then what chance would there be of holding the larger community intact.”

In other words, Obama is wondering, in effect, whether Wright can help him reconcile his black racialism with his vaguely Marxist class-strife ideology. Fortunately, Wright’s powerful sermon “The Audacity of Hope” –

“It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks’ greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere …

– overcomes Obama’s doubts about covert middleclassness and he is accepted into the bosom of this authentically anti-middleclassness racialist church.

Now, it’s possible that if anybody were to ask Obama about all this, he might say,

“Yeah, I was young and stupid back then, and maybe not quite right in the head. These days, I’m not into black racialism and anti-middleclassness. After black voters broke my heart by rejecting me in 2000, I came to accept that I’m half white and all middle class. And I’m not lonely anymore, so I’m not so hung up on why Daddy and Mommy didn’t want to be around me, which means I’m no longer such a sucker for father figures like Rev. Wright.

I just stick with his church because, while it’s embarrassing to be associated with it, it would be politically even more embarrassing to leave it. I just hope it all blows over. But if that bastard keeps trying to stab me in the back for dumping him from speaking at my Springfield kickoff rally by giving the “Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Lifetime Achievement Award” to maniacs like Farrakhan — Who’s he going to give the next one to? The Beltway Snipers? — I will have to do a Sister Souljah on his high-yaller ass.”

Or, then again, maybe not.

But, the crucial point is, nobody has dared press Obama on it. Because, as everybody knows, wanting to understand the man who would be President would be racist. We must just take his faith on faith.

An article in The Independent recently reported a study which declared London the “capital of the world”:

London has topped the most exhaustive comparison ever compiled of the world’s great cities in a finding that sees Britain’s capital outstrip global rivals as a centre of economic performance and cultural significance.
Following months of research of population figures, financial markets, tourism trends, transport facilities and data relating to sports and arts events and transport, the study comes to a dramatic conclusion: London is the world’s capital city.

The article gives some specific reasons for London’s rating :

With one of the world’s most ebullient stock exchanges, a bustling and economically attractive City, the highest number of Unesco World Heritage Sites in any city, and a truly international restaurant scene that typifies its cultural make-up with more ethnic restaurants than any other metropolis, London scores highly across the board….
London achieved particularly strong ratings for its much-maligned underground Tube network (the world’s first), its cultural credentials and for hosting the Olympic Games twice in a century (1908 and 1948).

Indeed, there are many reasons to consider London a great city, it has a long list of historical accomplishments in the political, economic, literary, religious, scientific, and architectural fields.
As an American, I’d also like to point out that, 400 years ago, our own nation was founded by the Virginia Company of London and that the city has much to do with the cultural/legal/political foundation of the U.S.A.

Nowadays of course, it’s considered necessary to tout diversity as a reason for London’s success. For example, London’s Mayor Ken Livingstone (also known as “Red Ken”) said that

” Londoners are proud of our ‘unity in diversity’ and regard the multiculturalism of our city as one of its greatest strengths. With over 300 languages spoken here, London is literally the most international city in the world.”

And Frenchman Laurent Feniou said that

“You never really feel like a foreigner in central London. Whether it’s food, clothes or people, the diversity is just amazing.”

Yes, diversity is great, isn’t it ? But what does it really entail?

In London, diversity really means making London a city that is less British .
And if diversity is given the credit for great ethnic restaurants, should it also be given the credit for the threat of terrorism, and the July 2005 terrorist attack in London, mostly carried about by British-born Muslims ? Isn’t that another example of diversity ?

For a chilling example of today’s British diversity, watch this video interview with British-born Mullah Anjem Choudhury, who explains how Muslims are, by definition innocent, and non-Muslims are, by definition, not innocent, thus refusing to condemn terrorist bombings.

So if people like Anjem Choudhury take over London, will it still be a great city? And if so, in what way ?

Here’s the official Obama response:

“I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan,” Obama said in the statement. “I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree.”

Obama is being more than a tad disingenuous. You can watch the three minute video tribute to Farrakhan that the Wrights posted on Youtube on 11/4/07 and see that they are praising Farrakhan to the high heavens for his stance on race. The smarmy lady narrator (who I would guess is Rev. Wright’s daughter Jeri L. Wright, the publisher of his magazine Trumpet, and who does a radio talk show with Al Sharpton) says:

“Louis X, later renamed Louis Farrakhan, chose to dedicate his life to the teachings of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad. He has been called one of the most misunderstood and misdefined leaders of our day. The Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. infers that ‘When Louis Farrakhan speaks, Black America listens.’ His depth on analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation is both astounding and eye-opening. His tremendous success is evidenced by his mosques and study groups in over 120 cities in America, Europe, the Caribbean, and missions in West Africa and South Africa devoted to the teachings of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad. His success is solidified in his ability to compel one million men to take publicly take charge of their own fate. In the words of Father Michael Pfleger, ‘His leadership has evolved, and I believe the coming days will see him as a unifying force, calling real Christians, real Jews and real Muslims to come together on principles of truth and justice.’”

I don’t hear the world “prisoners” or any reference to prisoner rehabilitation in the video.Of course, the real issue is not that Obama is a follower of Farrakhan (which he isn’t), it’s that Obama is a follower of Wright. And Obama doesn’t address that.

The more I think about it, the more the following speculation makes sense: that Obama’s spiritual advisor, Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., is trying to sabotage Obama’s campaign.

Rev. Wright has multiple reasons to do it:

1. Spite: Obama dumped him at the last moment from his big spot on national TV giving the invocation at Obama’s kickoff rally in Springfield last winter.

2. Glory: Wright craves attention the way Britney Spears does.

3. Ideology: Wright despises the idea that whites would give a black man like Obama an even break. As he told Obama when they first met (p. 283 of Obama’s Dreams From My Father):

“Cops don’t check my bank account when they pull me over and make me spread-eagle against the car. These miseducated brothers, like that sociologist at the University of Chicago [William Julius Wilson], talking about ‘the declining significance of race.’ Now, what country is he living in?”

Here’s the timeline:

Reverend Wright’s amour propre was wounded by Obama dumping him at the last moment from giving the invocation at Obama’s nationally televised campaign kickoff last winter in Springfield.

He soon after boasted to the NYT about how when word got out about his trip with Farrakhan to Libya in 1984 was going to eventually cost Obama all his Jewish support.

But, word didn’t much get out. The whole Wright story pretty much got shoved down the media memory hole as too hot to handle in these sensitive times.

So, Wright posted on the web a long open letter to the NYT denouncing the NYT for, well, for quoting him correctly.

That didn’t make much of a ripple either, so then the Wrights went back to the Farrakhan Well again by giving him their grand prize at a big bash at the Chicago Hyatt Regency on November 2, 2007. Two days later they posted their video tribute to Farrakhan on Youtube.

The media still wouldn’t touch that either for two months, but eventually it came out and Wright is now getting the attention he feels he deserves.

If this story gets buried again, Wright is going to keep pulling stunts like this. If he keeps to the same schedule for his annual fund-raising gala, it will be the Friday night before Election Day 2008. Who will he give his lifetime achievement award to this time? Col. Gadaffi? Ahmadinejad? O.J. Simpson? Willie Horton?

Perhaps he wants to turn himself into the Willie Horton of 2008, and his name goes down in history associated with the conventional wisdom about how white racism kept the Democrats from winning in 2008.

I bet that Wright doesn’t want Obama to win–that would disprove his whole world view that whites will never give a black man an even break. He wants Obama to go down in flames to prove he was right, and he wants to be the torch. Just as the conventional wisdom has become that white racism cost Michael Dukakis the Presidency in 1988 over Willie Horton, he wants to go down in history in conjunction with the next myth–that white racism cost Obama the Presidency or Vice-Presidency over Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.