Category Archives: Welfare

“Bill of Love” Will Doom Trump

Donald Trump held an unprecedented meeting with leaders from both parties yesterday, had it televised, and invited the press. Had he gone on stage during the campaign and said “As far as amnesty, whatever the two parties come up with I’ll gladly sign,” he’d never have been elected. Maybe he has an ulterior motive that I’m too stupid to see but it seems that since Kelly and McMaster got rid of all his conservative advisers he’s started drifting left on many things. Stopping the immigation tsunami was one of the main reasons he was elected.

Trump Wants a “Bill of Love” on DACA
“We are here today to advance bipartisan immigration reform that serves the needs of the American families, workers and taxpayers. It’s DACA,” Trump said a meeting on DACA at the White House. “Maybe we can do something. We have a lot of good people in this room, a lot of people that have a great spirit for taking care of people we represent.”
“I have great confidence . . . if they come to me with things I’m not in love with, I’m going to do it because I respect them,” he said.
He does? Why?

Oh, I’m sorry, this is Trump.

Trump suggests 2-phase immigration deal for ‘Dreamers’
President Donald Trump suggested Tuesday that an immigration agreement could be reached in two phases — first by addressing young immigrants and border security with what he called a “bill of love,” then by making comprehensive changes that have long eluded Congress.
My head is spinning from all the things that were said by the president and others in that room in the course of an hour and a half,” said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. “But the sense of urgency, the commitment to DACA, the fact that the president said to me privately as well as publicly, ‘I want to get this done,’ I’m going to take him as his word.”

After Trump on-air immigration meeting, I hear that Amnesty Train a-comin’
Trump meeting with congressional leaders was both political genius and worrisome.
People got to watch him in action running a meeting and in control, the master of ceremonies presiding over the congressional leadership from both parties.
It must have killed CNN to have to admit Trump was in control:

So at many levels, it was a genius political move.
As I was watching it, all I could keep thinking was, “here comes amnesty.”
The code words were all there, particularly “comprehensive immigration reform.”

The political dividing line is “pathway to citizenship.” If that’s in either a DACA bill or ultimate comprehensive reform, it’s amnesty. And it’s what the old Gang of 8 members still want.

Trump said he’ll “take the heat.”

The “worst” view is that the Amnesty Train is rolling down the tracks, and to use a metaphor from the campaign, Trump will shoot his core campaign promise on immigration in the middle of 5th Avenue, figuring his base will stick with him anyway.

Report: DACA Amnesty ‘Would Increase’ Number of Anchor Babies on Welfare
As Breitbart News previously reported, there are an estimated 4.5 million United States-born children who were given birthright citizenship despite at least one of their parents being an illegal alien. These children are commonly known as “anchor babies,” as they are able to eventually bring their foreign relatives to the U.S. legally through the process known as “chain migration.”
This estimate does not include anchor babies over the age of 18 or those who are living abroad with their deported parents.
A CBO report, estimating the impact of giving amnesty to the nearly 800,000 to 3.5 million illegal aliens who are enrolled or eligible for the President Obama-created Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, finds that such a plan would end up increasing the number of anchor babies who participate in federal benefit programs every year:

After DACA Comments, Tucker Asks Trump: ‘What Was The Point Of Running For President?’

The Daily Caller co-founder said, “Congress is full of people from both parties who believe that the point of our immigration policy is to provide cheap labor to their donors and to atone for America’s imaginary sins against the world. They couldn’t care less about immigration’s effect on you or your family–these are the same people the president now says he trusts to write the immigration bill, the one he will sign no matter what it says. So what was the point of running for president?”
Carlson continued, “The Democrats’ goal is to import more Democratic voters, and by any means necessary. Once they retake the Congress and the presidency, and if Trump betrays his base on immigration–that’ll definitely happen–it is over. Say goodbye to borders, they are done.

‘In Command’: Trump Shocks Media With Access To Immigration Meeting With Democrats
Laying out conditions that many Democrats view as nonstarters, Mr. Trump said the legislation must fortify the nation’s borders; end “chain migration,” a term used by immigration critics to refer to immigrants’ ability to bring members of their extended family to the United States after gaining their own legal status; and cancel the diversity visa lottery program.
Even CNN praised the extended pool spray, with Dana Bash saying that this meeting probably wouldn’t have gone any different if the cameras weren’t there, citing two Republicans at the meeting who told her they had no idea the cameras would stick around that long. She added that this is what people who voted for Trump hoped his presidency would look like, The Donald “in command.”

‘Lucky You Guys’: Sarah Sanders Pokes Fun At Reporters Over Sitting In On DACA Meeting
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders poked fun at the media Tuesday over the White House allowing reporters to observe a bipartisan immigration talk.
Fabian asked, “Whose decision was it to allow the press in to witness that entire negotiation, and what was the goal of having us sit there and watch?”
Sanders said, “Just to be clear you weren’t there for the entire negotiation, because the deal didn’t take place until after you guys left.

Rep. Dave Brat on DACA: I Don’t Think Dems Want to Shut Down the Gov’t ‘In Exchange for Giving Illegals Citizenship’
Brat explained, “It comes down to leverage. Hopefully, our side says, ‘Look we won the House, the Senate, and the White House, based on not doing a DACA deal.’ It’s not in the Republican platform. What’s in the platform is balancing the budget, building a strong defense, having strong borders, having legal hiring through E-Verify, controlling chain migration, so that way immigration policy favors American workers. Most of it is common sense, but the special interests get in the way.




Filed under Amnesty, DACA, David Brat, Democrats, Donald Trump, Immigration, Republicans, Sarah Sanders, Tucker Carlson, Welfare

Happy Tuesday

Continuing my unbroken string of useless, inane, and pointless regurgitation of news of no particular import.

Waters’ Campaign Wrote Off Over $10,000 Spent on ‘Hamilton’ Tickets as Fundraising

44 years … 44 long years she’s been getting away with this because her voters only care that she’s black.

[CtH: Methinks the real power behind her throne (Soros et al.?) only care that she’s greedy and stupid and easy to control.]

The House campaign committee Citizens for Waters paid $10,747.15 for the tickets for the popular Broadway show on Aug. 26, according to a Federal Election Commission report of receipts and disbursements.

Ahead of Halloween, universities nationwide tell students what not to wear
“Unacceptable costumes” listed on a University of St. Thomas diversity flier are “wearing Native American headdresses, dressing up as a ‘Mexican’ by wearing a sombrero, dressing as a ‘geisha,’ any form of blackface.”
“Cultural appropriation is defined as ‘the act of taking intellectual and cultural expressions from a culture that is not your own, without showing that you understand or respect the culture,’” explains a University of St. Thomas diversity memo to students.

[CtH: They’re very, very selective about whose culture is inviolable, so I’m guessing they don’t have anything in there about dressing up as an Irish leprechaun, an Italian mobster, a German Nazi, etc. etc. ]

George Lopez Booed For Anti-Trump Jokes At Charity Event

According to a person at the event, the CEO of Liberty Media, Greg Maffei, asked Lopez “nicely to stop making Trump jokes … George doesn’t, continues, gets booed.”
“Thank you for changing my opinion on old white men, but that doesn’t change the way I feel about orange men,” Lopez responded to the request.


Video posted Saturday on YouTube shows the comedian apologizing for “bringing politics to an event.” Then slams the audience for their “white privilege.”
“Listen, it’s about the kids,” he added. “I apologize for bringing politics to an event. This is America–it still is. So I apologize to your white privilege, but yes I’m sorry. If I was a minority in Denver I would be upset too.”


[CtH: “White privilege” now means having the sacred right to shut up while your “betters” bully you.  Gee, thanks, SJWs!  It’s just what I always wanted!  Not.]

McCain makes speech blasting ‘half-baked’ nationalism


The former POW and Arizona Republican called the United States “the last best hope on earth” while giving an acceptance speech for the National Constitution Center’s Liberty Medal, according to Politico.
While not mentioning President Trump by name, McCain’s speech was a sharp contrast to Trump’s habits of shunning international institutions such as NATO and the United Nations.


[CtH: If half of what his fellow POWs say about him is true, then he’d know ALL ABOUT half-baked patriotism.]

Four GOP Senators Standing in the Way of Progress


Four Republican senators hold and have held our country in their hands for most of this year by themselves. They obstruct progress by wielding far too much power than their positions and number merit. They are Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Rand Paul of Kentucky, and John McCain of Arizona.

These four prevented healthcare reform and they now stand in the way of tax reform.

Brigitte Gabriel: ‘Refugee Resettlement’ is ‘About Supplying Cheap Labor’ at U.S. Taxpayer Expense

“Here’s what I mean by that: Most refugees are on some type of welfare and that makes anyone who employs them, any company that employs them, eligible for the federal Work Opportunity Tax Credit. An employer has a greater incentive to hire a refugee because the salary is subsidized by the government, than hiring a good, hard-working American who is looking for a job.”

Seriously? Hillary Clinton Says She Was “Running Down Stairs in Heels With Cup of Coffee” When She Broke Toe
Hillary Clinton canceled her interview with the BBC today.  She said, “I was running down the stairs in heels with a cup of coffee in hand, I was talking over my shoulder and my heel caught and I fell backwards. I tried to get up and it really hurt. I’ve broken my toe. I’ve received excellent care from your excellent health service.”
Seriously?  Does anyone believe that?

Judge REFUSES to dismiss, says Menendez case going to JURY TRIAL!


After raising U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez’s hopes last week, a federal judge crushed them on Monday morning.
U.S. District Court Judge William Walls refused to toss any of the 18 charges in the corruption case against U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, despite last week casting doubt on a legal theory that’s at the heart of the prosecution’s case.

Deal for Bowe Bergdahl looks worse and worse

To garner sympathy from the sentencing judge, Bergdahl’s defense team is expected to play up his alleged mental health problems, including what they claim is paranoia and schizophrenia.
However, Army shrinks found Bergdahl does not suffer from psychological problems that would prevent him from standing trial. And last month, Bergdahl’s lawyers failed to produce for prosecutors mental health records and other evidence detailing any serious condition.

[CtH: SUCH a SHAME that his conviction will come too late for BHO to pardon him. NOT.]

President Trump to Hillary Clinton: “Hillary, Please Run Again,” In 2020

EPA Chief Scott Pruitt Ends ‘Abusive’ Obama ‘Sue & Settle’ Policy

Under previous administrations, particularly the Obama administration, special interest environmental groups such as the Sierra Club used lawsuits to force the EPA and other federal agencies to issue regulations that advance their climate change agenda. Those groups would sue the EPA and ask the court to compel the agency to enact new environmental regulations.
Critics say the “sue and settle” policy amounts to regulation through litigation, which allowed former EPA administrations to skirt around the agency’s limited rulemaking authority.


Filed under Bowe Bergdahl, Climate, Culture Wars, Donald Trump, Education, EPA, Hillary Clinton, Immigration, John McCain, Maxine Waters, Welfare

Speaker Ryan Invites a Social Doctrine Conversation

By George Weigel.

CNN is not the customary locale-of-choice for a catechesis on Catholic social doctrine. But that’s what Paul Ryan, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, offered viewers of a CNN national town hall meeting on the evening of August 21.

Challenged with a semi-“Gotcha!” question by Sinsinawa Dominican Sister Erica Jordan, who not-so-subtly suggested that Ryan’s approach to healthcare reform, tax reform, and welfare reform was in conflict with the Church’s social teaching, the very Catholic Speaker replied that he completely agreed with Sister Erica that God is “always on the side of the poor and dispossessed”; the real question was, how do public officials, who are not God, create public policies that empower the poor and dispossessed to be not-poor and not-dispossessed?

Congressman Ryan then laid out an approach to alleviating poverty and empowering the poor that seemed to me entirely congruent with the core Catholic social ethical principles of subsidiarity and solidarity. Solidarity with the poor is a moral imperative, Ryan agreed, but solidarity should not be measured by inputs—How many federal dollars go into anti-poverty programs?—but by outcomes: Are poor people who can live independent and fruitful lives being helped by our welfare dollars to develop the skills and habits that will enable them to be self-reliant, constructive citizens? The moral obligation of solidarity is not met by programs that perpetuate welfare dependency.

Speaker Ryan is a longstanding advocate of decentralizing and (as he puts it) “customizing” social welfare programs. That means abandoning one-size-fits-all attempts to address poverty and looking to the states, where a lot of the creativity in American government resides these days, for approaches that actually empower the poor, because they treat poor people as men and women with potential to be unleashed, not simply as clients to be maintained. Proposals to decentralize social welfare programs and give the states the funds necessary to conduct all sorts of customized efforts to empower the poor—crafted so that each “fits” the vast array of distinct circumstances we find in impoverished America—strike me as a sensible application of the social doctrine’s principle of subsidiarity. That principle, first articulated by Pope Pius XI in 1931, teaches us to leave decision-making at the lowest possible level in society, closest to those most directly affected by the policy in question. Paul Ryan thinks Washington doesn’t have to decide everything; Pius XI would have agreed.

The fact that poverty remains a serious problem in the United States after the federal government has spent $22 trillion dollars on social welfare programs over the past fifty years should have taught us all something about the complex problems of empowering the poor. No one with any sense or experience imagines that he or she has the silver-bullet answer to poverty in all its social, cultural, economic, and political dimensions; I know my friend Speaker Ryan doesn’t think he does.

But unlike those who insist on measuring an official’s or a party’s commitment to the poor by inputs rather than outcomes (an approach that tends to instrumentalize the poor and render social welfare policy a cash transaction rather than a human encounter), Paul Ryan and reform conservatives like him are willing to face the fact that there is no direct correlation between magnitude-of-dollar-inputs and success-of-human-outcomes when it comes to anti-poverty programs. Inner-city Catholic schools (the Church in America’s most effective social welfare program) demonstrate that time and again: They spend less than the government schools, and their students learn much more—and not just in quantifiable, standardized-testing terms.

America needs many serious conversations in this age of the demagogic tweet and the rabid talk-radio sound-bite. One of them is about the scandal of poverty amidst vast wealth and the empowerment of the poor. That conversation is not advanced when, as happened after the CNN broadcast, smug partisans attack a serious Catholic public official by suggesting that he’s deficient in both his moral commitment to the poor and his understanding of Catholic social doctrine. Paul Ryan is no more the reincarnation of Simon Legree than Sister Erica Jordan and her fellow Sinsinawa Dominicans are the reincarnation of Ingrid Bergman/Sister Mary Benedict in The Bells of St. Mary’s. Keeping that in mind would help foster the thoughtful debate that the Speaker, and the country, would welcome.

George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of Washington, D.C.’s Ethics and Public Policy Center, where he holds the William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies.

1 Comment

Filed under Christianity, Paul Ryan, Poverty, Welfare

Government welfare is based on compulsion, not compassion

2017_03 Meals on Wheels toon

From Stephen Moore:

One of my favorite stories of American history dates back to the 19th century when Col. Davy Crockett, who fought at the Alamo, served in Congress. In a famous incident, Congress wanted to appropriate $100,000 to the widow of a distinguished naval officer.

Crockett took to the House floor and delivered his famous speech, relevant as ever: “We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money. … I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

Crockett was the only member of Congress who donated personally to the widow, while the members of Congress who pretended to be so caring and compassionate closed their wallets.

It all goes to show that liberal do-gooders were as hypocritical then as they are today.


1 Comment

Filed under U.S. Congress, Welfare

Who is more compassionate?

Comments Off on Who is more compassionate?

Filed under Economy, Education, Poverty, Taxes, Welfare

The Left’s agenda is bad for body and soul

St JPII abortion

Penn Jillette on taxation and charity

Milton Friedman – Why a 100% inheritance tax would destroy society

H/t Pistol Pete

Comments Off on The Left’s agenda is bad for body and soul

Filed under Milton Friedman, Pope John Paul II, Taxes, Welfare

A liberal is someone who

A liberal is someone who

Lena Dunham’s “Republican rapist” turns out to be neither.

“The genuine victims of sexual violence should be horrified by their supposed allies who would profit from their abuse by falsely claiming to have shared in it.”

Read the rest @


Filed under Democrats, Islam, Lena Dunham, Republicans, Welfare

Another look at “Who Really Cares?”

Who really cares w quot

The LA Times is irked about the 2006 book “Who Really Cares,” by Arthur C. Brooks, in which Brooks reported on a DECADE of research, both within the United States and overseas, into the single question of how one’s political beliefs affect one’s personal charitable behavior.

Brooks wrote in his preface that he was raised liberal and went into this field specifically to prove to conservatives that liberals were more charitable. After ten years of finding out he was wrong, wrong and wrong (even abroad), he gave it up and admitted that right-wingers give a larger percentage of their money and more of their time and blood than left-wingers, even when donations to churches are removed.

Two points here are really important, because this LA Times article is very sneering about Brooks’ findings. (Methinks the writer never actually read the book, but is merely reporting on what he kinda sorta heard was reported about it by others.)

Point One: Brooks’ research was his dedicated field of study for a decade. He was TRYING to prove liberals were more generous. He failed. The LA Times article supposedly trashes all that with ONE study slapped together by two guys at MIT?  Riiiiiiiiight.

Point Two:  The MIT and LA Times both stressed that conservatives only give more because they’re generous personally AND to their churches. There are two problems with this. The major one is that Brooks addressed that and found it to be incorrect. There’s a whole bunch of stuff about that in his book … which I read. In fact, I own it. He found that conservatives give more overall AND give a larger percentage of their income and more volunteer hours to both church and to non-church charities; heck we even give more blood!

Also, the attitude expressed in the article is that church donations are inherently “not generous”, because churches only use the money to benefit their own wealthy members. Obviously, these people actually believe that churches are just really boring country clubs, which makes me suspect they have (a) not read Brooks’ book and (b) never spent any time in a real church. Where I live, the kitchen cupboard, soup kitchen, homeless shelter, thrift shop, and “second chance” housing project (for convicts who have served their time) are all church-backed projects. The churches in my area also provide low cost space for non-church activities like day care and aerobics classes.

I can’t speak to other congregations, but my parish never refuses a family the use of our beautiful facility for weddings or funerals just because they have never darkened the doorstep before. And I know for a fact that my diocese continued to fund an inner city school long after the Catholic kids had moved to the burbs. All the students were black Baptists; even the principal was a black Baptist. And no, it wasn’t about proselytizing; it was about providing the ONLY quality educational opportunity that neighborhood had after the public school had become a wasteland of politically correct mediocrity and violence.

Point Three: The LA Times article seems to assume (or totally ignores … probably didn’t read the book) the over-arching point of Brooks’ book, which was that big government welfare is bad for human beings in a way that is rarely or never acknowledged. In short, it makes people selfish and selfishness makes people unhappy. If you haven’t read the book, I encourage you to do so. It’s enlightening and uplifting, unlike the LA Times article which is sneering and left me wanting to take a bath.

1 Comment

Filed under Books, Christianity, Media Bias, Welfare