Doc in Yuma (a regular, loyal reader and sometime contributor) sent me this regarding control of Food Stamps.
Sent to him under the title “Compassionate Conservatism”.
Put me in charge…
Put me in charge of food stamps. I’d get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for
Ding Dongs or Ho Ho’s, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans,
blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want
steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.
Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I’d do is to get women
Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we’ll test
recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos and
piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke or get
tats and piercings, then get a job.
Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks?
You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your
“home” will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be
inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your
In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or
you will report to a “government” job. It may be cleaning the roadways of
trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We
will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo
and speakers and put that money toward the “common good..”
Before you write that I’ve violated someone’s rights, realize that all of
the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before
you say that this would be “demeaning” and ruin their “self esteem,”
consider that it wasn’t that long ago that taking someone else’s money for
doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.
If we are expected to pay for other people’s mistakes we should at least
attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system
rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.
AND – While you are on Gov’t subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes that
is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will
voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov’t
welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.
Alfred W. Evans, Gatesville , TX
First of all, I’m a (conservative) libertarian (small L). Voluntarism, coupled with non-nanny-statism would be the order of the day. With that in mind, some of the controls suggested are ones with which I disagree. For example…
“Food” choices. If an EBT (food stamp) recipient wants T-bone steak or Twinkies to eat – I don’t care! Only so many funds are allocated each month, and buying steak will ‘eat up’ the funds rather quickly.
It would be nice if the purchase of TP, laundry soap and similar household items were included on the ‘approved’ list, though.
Forced birth control is repugnant to me. And recreational drugs and body disfigurement are not on the food stamp list. Not my problem.
The whole ‘government housing’ thing is also repugnant. If someone wants to live in a hovel or cannot afford maintenance, it is no concern of mine. As long as it doesn’t affect the public health and safety. Funny how a ‘conservative’ cries for such control, but screams about the prospect of FEMA camps…
I do like the idea of (voluntary) government service to help maintain the infrastructure. I’m not certain it should be tied to receipt of food stamps, however.
“While you are on Gov’t subsistence, you can no longer VOTE! For you to vote would be a conflict of interest.”
WOW – what a concept!
Of course, while a compassionate State maintains some kind of a ‘safety net’ for the truly needy, I’m a little unclear how this can be administered efficiently, fairly and at a reasonable cost.
After all, it IS government of which we speak!
Let’s say your speech from a soapbox in the public park plays well in NYC’s Central Park. But, not as well in rural Missouri.
Should your right to free speech be restricted in Missouri.? But not in New York?
I don’t think so.
A Right is a Right is a Right. PERIOD.
How about your right to practice (or not) a religion? Or freely assemble? Or deny troops access to your home for quartering in peacetime? Or your right to not self-incriminate?
Different in the Big City versus the small town?
You know where I’m going.
(courtesy of David Codrea)
Jeb’s ridiculous and arrogant view of location-based rights is still not enough for Debbie, who expressed no objections when Obama said the same thing. They all know it’s a lie, and the edicts they’re going after, from the baby steps of “universal background checks” to the end game, will have no “home rule” regional limitations. They just use that term for the suckers.
Still, it wouldn’t be out of line to ask Jeb to explain in detail what specifically works for New York City. Matter of fact, those who have given him “A” ratings and endorsements in the past ought to be demanding it…
UPDATE: Not that I expect this will be anything but ignored…
Of course, old-timers like me remember when William Jefferson Clinton’s running mate (you know, the guy who invented the Internet, and global warming) was the guy who roomed at Harvard with Texan actor Tommy Lee Jones. And Mr. Jones (a Texas rancher and gun owner) ascribed to the same beliefs! That it was okay to carry firearms in Texas, but in D.C. and N.Y.C. (the big city) it was a no-no.
That argument didn’t hold for Tommy Lee Jones, and it doesn’t hold for Jeb and Barack, either!
Well, BILL, anyway…
‘We’ used to say “Bill Clinton was the best gun salesman in the United States!” (Due to the Assault Weapons Ban, Waco, etc…)
A woman had her guns taken from her because her husband had a psychiatric issue. She’s suing:
The city took her 12 guns away in 2013. KNTV reports that she went to federal court recently to get them back. She contends in her lawsuit, which also seeks damages and an injunction to prevent future seizures, that she has a right to have guns in her home, despite her husbands mental health issue.
In California, of course…
from Say Uncle
Old NFO was kind enough to remind us, after having watched the ‘debate’, do we have to watch another 17 months of this!?
My answer: NO.
First, it wasn’t a debate. I did debate in high school – this was not it. There hasn’t been anything resembling a Presidential Debate since Kennedy/Nixon.
Second, they can say anything they want! They are not under oath. It would be more amusing had the Federal Election Commission swore them all in to tell the truth. Then, post election, if any elected official violated his/her oath…
I can dream.
Fox News just published an exclusive confirming that Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani just visited Moscow even though he’s under a travel ban and prohibited from leaving Iran by United Nations Security Council sanctions. The article is at the bottom of this email and has details down to the Air Iran flight numbers and times of his arrival and departure.
Evidence of sanctions-busting by Soleimani has the potentially to be politically disastrous for the Obama administration. The Iranian general was originally sanctioned for a wide range of terror activities, including against Americans: U.S. military officials estimate that he has the blood of roughly 500 American soldiers on his hands and that the majority of American causalities during the final two years of Iraq were because of his surrogates [a][b]. The JCPOA lifted many sanctions against Soleimani were lifted under the final JCPOA, generating a flood of criticism and forcing the administration to go into damage control mode.
At first the State Department denied the concession even existed, with Kerry claiming that it was a different Qassem Soleimani who was being delisted [c]. That was false and so the White House quickly had to concede that the general was indeed getting sanctions relief [d]. (Lying POS, as usual.)
IRAN (aka the North Korea of the Middle East) is following their same tactics. Promise anything, give up little or nothing, and lie if caught!
Of course, nothing will be done about this…
Come to think of it, sounds like most AMERICAN politicians!
h/t Brock Townsend
“We came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt.”
Tigerhawk has a few choice words about the leading (Rand villain) couple of America’s “aristocracy of pull.”
The news today had its uplifting moments. Vox choked out a spectacular story about the arresting wealth gathered in by Bill and Hillary Clinton since 2007, and graced it with a headline so snarky that Donald Trump might have written it: “Hillary Clinton has paid more in taxes than Jeb Bush has ever earned.” The short version is that the Clintons have “earned” — more about the use of that word in a moment — $141 million since 2007. I don’t care who you are, that’s some decent coin.
The second best part about the Vox story is the searchable list of all the organizations, mostly large business corporations, that have paid the Clintons enormous sums to hear their talking points in person. Scroll down and make your list of boycott targets (I was sad to see my old law firm Latham & Watkins in that corrupt crowd, by the way). …
Is there a single person alive who believes that corporations, trade associations, NGOs, unions, and the like pay the Clintons enormous sums for speeches because they believe their members actually want to hear the Clintons say the same tedious talking points they have been spewing for years? If that were the only value received no profit-minded enterprise would pay the Clintons these vast fees because they would earn, well, a shitty rate of return.
No, the Clintons are not paid to speak. Businesses and other interest groups pay them for the favor of access at a crucial moment or a thumb on the scale in the future, perhaps when it is time to renew the Ex-Im Bank or at a thousand other occasions when a nod might divert millions of dollars from average people in to the pockets of the crony capitalists. The speaking is just a ragged fig leaf, mostly to allow their allies in the media to say they “earned” the money for “speaking,” which is, after all, hard work.
We have such people as the Clintons (and the tens of thousands of smaller bore looters who have turned the counties around Washington, D.C. in to the richest in the country) because they and their ilk in both parties have transformed the federal government of the United States in to a vast favors factory, an invidious place that not only picks winners and losers and decides the economic fates of millions of people, but which has persuaded itself that this is all quite noble. Instead, the opposite is true: This entire class of people, of which the Clintons are a most ugly apotheosis, are destroying the country while claiming it is all in the “public service.” It is disgusting. We need to say that, at least, out loud.
Of course, all of this was prefigured years ago in a novel some of you will know.
2 FEEDBACKS ON “CLINTONS “EARNED” $141 MILLION SINCE 2007”
No one ever paid Bill or Hillary because of their wisdom on inciteful presentation. 100% of these speaking engagements have been payola, graft, buying political power, etc. At least in the 3rd world they do it more openly and honestly and simply ask for money if you want something. Here we make believe that their half our speech is worth $300K.
Channel surfing on the radio this weekend I heard a reporter on a NPR station gleefully reporting that these records indicate that the Clintons donated slightly over 10% of their income.
Then later in the weekend I read that approx 99% of their donations went to their own foundation….Can one actually write off what one donates to oneself?
(from Never Yet Melted)
I really don’t need to add anything here. I suspect many other politicians, of both parties, have played the same shell games with their funding. And lied to cover it up.
Nothing new to see here – pay no attention to the folks behind the curtain!
Assailant in Garland, Texas, attack bought gun in 2010 under Fast and Furious operation
I wonder how many other attacks on U.S. soil are traceable to these transactions?
(Probably not too many, as difficult as it is to bring illegal stuff across the border…)
h/t The Duck
Two mothers who lost sons to gun violence joined ministers and an activist Tuesday (a week ago) in a lawsuit against three Chicago suburbs, alleging that weak oversight of gun shops has allowed criminals to easily obtain weapons flowing into a city besieged by gun violence.
The lawsuit accuses Lyons, Riverdale and Lincolnwood communities of violating the civil rights of residents in Chicago’s largely African American neighborhoods by failing to take concrete steps to make sure gun stores are not selling weapons to people who shouldn’t be allowed to carry them.
“Those illegal firearms are flowing into a pocket of communities violating the civil rights of the individuals who reside there, who are afraid to go near their windows or let their children play in the park, much less their own yards,” said Kathleen Sances, a member of the Coalition for Safe Chicago Communities, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
I suspect these victims of gun violence were probably misguided yutes (gang members or wannabes), based on the crime history in Chicago. Perhaps the phrase above should be amended to read who lost sons to gang violence.
I also suspect between the local police oversight and the BATFE that gun shops in Chicago probably have more inspections than most in other cities with lower crime(?)
h/t Maddened Fowl, Fox News
The man who stood at the forefront to prosecute (and obtained convictions) against Charles Manson and his co-conspirators had died.
Mr. Bugliosi was 80.
Personally, he and I held some differing, and alike opinions.
He sided with the Warren Commission, even participating in a television drama ‘prosecuting’ Lee Harvey Oswald. (Gerry Spence was the defense attorney).
But he desperately wanted to reopen the RFK murder investigation, as there were so many unanswered questions.
But, he did ‘get’ Manson and company.