Saturday, March 28, 2009

Another notorious earmark (joke!)

I've conducted further research on how the Democrats want to waste our hard-earned cash. The $410 billion omnibus bill contains an earmark put in by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). She appropriated $50,000
so that the Octomom, Nadya Suleman, can receive an emergency hysterectomy. Can't our taxes go to better use? Oh, wait a minute. I get it. This may actually be a good thing. This is an investment in the future so that the Octomom won't have additional children that'll cost us millions of dollars more in taxes.

Now I'm as pro-life as you can get, but some people just aren't suited to be parents. Here's a woman who's had 14 children all conceived via in vitro fertilization. Do you know what that means? That means she's had all of these kids without even having the satisfaction of a man to get her pregnant in the first place. Not that any man would want to volunteer, except for maybe Bill Clinton. All jokes aside, this is a serious situation. She's an unmarried woman on welfare. She had no business having the six kids she already had, much less the octuplets she just brought into the world. Yet I also blame the fertility clinic and the people there who were willing to let Ms. Suleman bring children into this world who would grow up in a very stressful environment. I know the Octomom loves kids, but she should've just been a kindergarten teacher like others have suggested.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Perhaps we should've given Nadya Suleman that hysterectomy ten years ago so the taxpayers wouldn't be forced to pay for the care of 14 children in vitro and out of wedlock. But things are what they are. My advice to the Octomom, since she looks so much like Angelina Jolie, is that she should hook up with Brad Pitt (although not romantically) and hope he keeps making movies for the next 30 years to pay for those 14 precious children. Yet that hysterectomy sounds more and more like a good idea. An ounce of pre-
vention is worth a pound of cure.

G.J. LaRouche (originally printed on 6 March 2009 on www.macombgop.com)

No comments:

Post a Comment