Posted on 02/04/2003 12:00:06 AM PST by JohnHuang2
It was like ripping a zipper open on a big wallet. Your wallet. And there's a big hand, grabbing handfuls of money.
You heard it during the State of the Union address but you probably didn't notice.
The speech by President Bush was masterful. He first addressed domestic issues, emphasizing fiscal problems. Then he drew a line in the sand for Iraq, outlining the dangers and risks, including the fiscal impact.
Mr. Bush's strength in presenting the latter was enough, at first, to blur the impact of the upcoming wallet raid. The president clearly dropped on us (read U.S.) a major financial responsibility for the AIDS fight.
Not here, though. In at least 14 countries in Africa as well as Caribbean countries.
It's possible you only heard Mr. Bush say we'd contribute $3 billion to the Africa AIDS fight. You might have missed that it's really $3 billion a year for the next five years – that's $15 BILLION.
Of the total, $5 billion is already allotted to funding the U.N. Global Fund. Of the additional $10 billion, $1 billion goes to international AIDS programs and $9 billion for treatment and prevention.
The three so-called "infectious diseases of poverty" the U.N. Global Fund deals with are malaria – spread by mosquitoes; tuberculosis – spread person-to-person; and AIDS. Malaria is preventable with DDT – that's been stopped. Tuberculosis is preventable, curable and easily tested. So why do they each get 20 percent of the money and AIDS, 60 percent? Don't ask.
The president didn't say where the "new money" for our $10 billion comes from. Think your wallet.
As Daddy said, money doesn't grow on trees.
What's going on? Is this real concern for disease or out-and-out pandering?
I think pandering wins.
Republicans have long taken flak for supposedly not caring about minorities. It should be worth some points that African and Caribbean victims are mostly black, mostly poor and many are heterosexual and female. Four points!
Give another point for domestic homosexuals – especially "gays" with AIDS – because of political clout from activism, money and guilt. They're called a persecuted minority because people "don't like" their sexual practices or their disease.
But like it or not, AIDS first appeared among homosexuals in San Francisco and most of today's victims are homosexual. It's also totally preventable. But that's not a popular concept.
That reality was made starkly clear in Rolling Stone magazine, out the same week as the president's speech. Titled "Bug Chasers," it spells out the grisly details of efforts by some homosexuals to get AIDS. Writer Gregory A. Freeman talked with a number of those who are part of what's called an "intricate underground" searching for the "beautiful and sexy" virus and who say that by intentionally getting the disease, homosexuals are "initiated into the brotherhood."
The Internet helps find infected partners. Those who want AIDS are called "bug chasers;" those infected who are willing "to share," are called "gift-givers."
If you've donated money for research, consider this: A sizable number of homosexuals consider AIDS a disease you can "live with." According to the article, "You take a few pills and get on with your life." They don't care about prevention or cure. They just want someone to fund their sexual lifestyle and their medical treatment when needed.
At least four AIDS organizations weren't interested in commenting – one suggested Freeman drop the story. Dr. Bob Cabaj, director of Behavioral-Health Services for San Francisco County and past president of two "gay" and lesbian medical associations, was more forthcoming. He said bug chasing is "a real phenomenon" and accounts for at least 25 percent of all newly infected homosexuals. He also said there's "an active cover-up."
No kidding. As soon as word of the story got out, the San Francisco Health Department denounced it and, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, claimed the doctor never made the comments and that he backtracked.
Nevertheless, San Francisco AIDS cases doubled last year. It's known that young homosexuals have sex without condoms – called "barebacking" – no "safe sex" here. Venereal disease is up – the CDC says syphilis increased 15.4 percent among homosexual men.
Multi-millions spent for AIDS treatment, prevention and education. For what?
And now, we're going to give $15 BILLION to poverty-ridden countries for mostly-illiterate people whose culture doesn't discourage random sex.
Is $3 billion annually enough? Activists already say, "No!" They want $6 billion next year; by 2007, $8 billion – A YEAR!
I remember an old remedy using money to prevent sexual activity. Put a dime between your knees, and keep it there.
That would never be done, our government is the one bringing them here, giving them "refugee" status and welfare benefits here.
I completely don't understand why the US taxpayer should pay for African AIDS, we didn't cause them to have promiscuous sex, we can't stop them from having that. No money was spent to prevent AIDS in heterosexual, monogamous couples because that's the only way to prevent the spread and it doesn't take money.
What do you know about winning? You just advocated capitulation.
I think rather than fight along the traditional 'accountants for the welfare state' tact conservatives traditionally choose when fighting a new welfare program, we should concede that we will lose that fight. A better tact, perhaps, would be to argue that Conservatives should support this expenditure, if it's tied to ending tax payer funded migrations of Somalians into the United States.
Spoken like a true GOP neocon ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.