Don’t Like ‘Anchor Babies’? Try ‘Products of Deception’

The term ‘anchor babies’ isn’t the problem. The practice of granting birthright citizenship to illegal aliens is.

The overlords of political correctness have struck again. Evidently, it’s now a “hateful slur” to call the children of illegal immigrants “anchor babies,” a long-held designation to describe how automatic citizenship bestowed on the children of illegal immigrants becomes a powerful magnet for people entering and staying in the United States illegally.

Last week, Hillary Clinton attacked Jeb Bush for using the term, saying it’s offensive and that anchor babies are simply “babies.” Donald Trump scoffed at that and refused to give in to the easily offended speech police. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal had the best response, tying Clinton’s comment to the abortion industry’s harvesting of organs from aborted babies.

“You know what I find offensive is Hillary Clinton, the Left, when you look at those Planned Parenthood videos—they refuse to call them babies, they call it fetal tissue, they call them specimens,” Jindal said. “That’s what’s offensive.”

After the Center of Medical Progress released the videos, defenders of abortion came out swinging, saying they aren’t “babies” but“products of conception“—a nice, clean, politically correct term that dehumanizes unborn children so the consciences of abortionists can be dulled as they chop up and crush the arms, legs, bodies, and heads of human babies.

Let’s Call Them Products of Deception

So, here’s a suggestion—for the sake of consistency among those on the Left. Let’s start calling anchor babies “products of deception,” because that’s exactly what they are—they’re children used by their parents to deceive American citizens in order to abuse and take advantage of our generosity.

It’s not meant to judge the character or value of the children themselves, but only to describe their role in illegal immigration practices.

Illegal immigrants, and even tourists who come to the United States for the fraudulent purpose of delivering their children on American soil, use their babies as tools to remain in our country and often to get freebies from our welfare system and to bring in more family members through chain migration. They do this despite the Fourteenth Amendment offering no legal support for this practice and no court in American history ever holding that the children of illegal immigrants have the right to automatic citizenship. Yet, somehow, this practice has administratively slipped into our system. Now, illegal aliens are taking advantage of it in droves.

Note that the emphasis here is on illegal aliens—a point often lost in the debate over birthright citizenship. When advocates for immigration reform say the United States must end “birthright citizenship,” they are talking about citizenship for the children ofillegal immigrants and those committing fraud on the American system, not for children of legal immigrants, and certainly not for people who have already been granted citizenship (see the grandfather clause in the Birthright Citizenship bill HR 140). They are talking about the practice of giving automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States but are citizens of another country.

Via: Continue Reading.....

Continue Reading.....

As Massachusetts food stamp agency tries to fix flaws, experienced welfare workers retire

Massachusetts welfare officials promised the federal government that they will take steps to correct problems with the state's food stamp program, including hiring more staff. However, the food stamp program just lost around 11 percent of its staff to an early retirement incentive.

"You have truly a brain drain with a system that's extremely new and extremely flawed," said Patricia Baker, senior policy analyst at the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute.

Michelle Hillman, a spokeswoman for the Executive Office of Health and Human Services, said, "We continue to assess the positions vacated due to early retirement and will prioritize based upon need and compliance with our corrective action plan."

The state has the authority to use up to 20 percent of the savings from the retirement incentive to hire new employees to fill critical jobs. It has not yet determined which positions will be filled.

The problems date back to a modernization of the food stamp program, officially called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, instituted in 2014, in response to reports of welfare fraud. The Department of Transitional Assistance created a new electronic management system that checked multiple sources of data to determine a recipient's eligibility, then began to automatically cut off benefits based on the results of online checks. The department instituted a new phone system. It centralized case processing, replacing a regional system.

As The Republican / MassLive.com previously reported, the modernization resulted in a huge drop in food stamp caseloads. Advocates for the poor said people were being needlessly kicked off the program and were having trouble reaching caseworkers to reinstate their benefits.

Via: Mass Live

Continue Reading.....

MCDONALDS TO INSTALL COMPUTER ORDERING SYSTEMS! NO $15 AN HOUR!

Congratulations liberals! You’ve freed thousands from minimum wage McJobs. And put them on McWelfare! But that’s what you McDo, isn’t it, libs?

The problem with liberals is they function primarily in emotion and a keen ability to ignore reality. They have been trained by their college professors (most of whom teach because they can’t earn a living in the real world) that there is always more of someone else’s money to spread around to “the people.” And there’s always the ‘EVIL CORPORATION’ where the CEO makes millions while line employees make minimum wage. It’s just awful and wrong!! But, unfortunately for liberals, it’s reality!

But liberals never realize that the business model of fast food restaurants requires virtually zero skills of their employees. Traditionally, McDonalds and others offered first jobs to kids in high school. It taught them how to work, to arrive promptly, to deal amicably with the public, to shoulder responsibility, etc. More than anything, it taught kids that they didn’t want to work at McDonalds the rest of their lives.

Like being born into poverty, there is no shame in working at McDonalds. There should be great shame in never working to rise above either poverty or a McJob. Enter the liberal mindset. Libs believe those McWorkers are victims too stupid to work and rise above their current state. Like the black trolls who comment on this page, liberals blame their every problem on someone else. Blacks have whitey and the mythical white privilege, liberals have evil corporations.

Via: Angry White Dude

Continue Reading....

Will Hillary Clinton Run Against Her Husband’s Welfare Legacy?

This story has been updated.

Almost 20 years ago, when Bill Clinton made good on his campaign promise to “end welfare as we know it,’’ some of his oldest friends were beside themselves. The plan, as originally conceived, had been to pump significantly more money into programs designed to move poor single mothers off of assistance and into jobs, which couldn’t be done on the cheap. Yes, Clinton had proposed a strict time limit on benefits, but he had also pledged to “make work pay.” As it turned out, only one of those two things happened.

On August 22, 1996, Clinton proudly signed a Republican bill that pushed recipients out of the program after five years and ended an entitlement in place since the New Deal. “In a sweeping reversal of Federal policy, the New York Times story on the event began, “President Clinton today ended six decades of guaranteed help to the nation's poorest children.”

The bill wasn’t the solo handiwork of then House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who had proposed sending poor children to orphanages. Rather, a Democratic president with political capital to spare was freely approving what many in his party saw as a baldly punitive bill. And Hillary Clinton, who in this early phase of her campaign has made "the-deck-is-stacked" inequality a central focus, was fully in support.

Photographer: David Hume Kennerly/Getty Images

President Clinton meets with House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Senate Majority Whip Trent Lott, and Representative Richard Gephardt in the White House in 1996.

Clinton's signing of the bill was a source of near-physical pain to someone like Peter Edelman, then Clinton’s assistant secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services, who as a speechwriter for Robert Kennedy had penned one of the earliest liberal critiques of welfare’s shortcomings, in 1967. RFK’s proposed antidote, however, had been a massive jobs program. Edelman had known Hillary Clinton since 1969, when he’d put her in touch with his wife, Marian Wright Edelman, who became her mentor and employer at the anti-poverty organization she'd just founded, the Children’s Defense Fund.

Via: Bloomberg.com

Continue Reading.,....

Welfare Nation by Bill O'Reilly

My parents were children during the Great Depression, and it scarred them, especially my father, who saw destitution in his Brooklyn, N.Y., neighborhood: adults standing in so-called "bread lines," children begging in the streets. My grandfather was a New York City cop, and so my dad did not suffer as others did. But he never forgot the brutal scenes and worked hard his whole life to build some financial independence.

Fast-forward to the severe recession of 2008, when millions of Americans lost jobs and equity in their homes. No bread lines, but much pain. The Obama administration responded by pouring trillions of dollars into stimulus and rescue programs, some of which succeeded in stabilizing tottering banks and auto companies. But along with that, the president and his acolytes openly encouraged Americans to use the welfare system. And now the entitlement culture has exploded.

According to the Census Bureau, more people in America today are on welfare than have full-time jobs. There is a culture of dependency being created that is truly shocking. A recent study by the Cato Institute concludes that welfare now pays more than minimum-wage work in 35 states. So why enter the workforce at the bottom if the government will give you the same compensation for sitting on your butt?

Some believe that the Democratic Party, which champions the entitlement culture, is doing so to assure future votes from those receiving benefits. And right now, about half of all American households are getting some kind of compensation from the feds. Some of that, such as Social Security and Medicare, has been earned. But nearly 50 million Americans are receiving food stamps, and 83 million are on Medicaid.

Via: TownHall

Continue Reading.....

Deep cuts to country's food stamp program start Friday

WASHINGTON –  Forty-eight million Americans will have their food stamps benefits slashed starting Friday, when a recession-era boost in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistant Program expires.

The move to cut back benefits will be the first wide-scale change to the program affecting nearly every single participant. The 13.6 percent cut comes out to about $36 a month less for a family of four getting government assistance or $420 a year, according to the Department of Agriculture.

Since 2000, the costs for the plan have increased more than 358 percent.

Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, cites lax eligibility requirements as one of the reasons behind the increase.

Enrollment in the food-stamp benefits also rose during the 2007-2011 recession.

Many anti-poverty groups have warned that cutting the program will leave millions of Americans vulnerable.

"People are living at the margins," Ellen Vollinger, legal director and SNAP advocate at the Food Research and Action Center, an anti-hunger organization, told Reuters. "It's not an abstract metric for people. It's actual dollars to keep food in the refrigerator."

The slash in the program also means less money for discount grocers, dollar stores and gas stations that rely on low-income shoppers.

SNAP is the largest anti-hunger program in the country.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading.....

Report: U.S. Spent $3.7 Trillion on Welfare Over Last 5 Years

New research from the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee shows that over the last 5 years, the U.S. has spent about $3.7 trillion on welfare. Here's a chart, showing that spending versus transportation, education, and NASA spending:

"We have just concluded the 5th fiscal year since President Obama took office. During those five years, the federal government has spent a total $3.7 trillion on approximately 80 different means-tested poverty and welfare programs. The common feature of means-tested assistance programs is that they are graduated based on a person’s income and, in contrast to programs like Social Security or Medicare, they are a free benefit and not paid into by the recipient," says the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee.

"The enormous sum spent on means-tested assistance is nearly five times greater than the combined amount spent on NASA, education, and all federal transportation projects over that time. ($3.7 trillion is not even the entire amount spent on federal poverty support, as states contribute more than $200 billion each year to this federal nexus—primarily in the form of free low-income health care.)

Via: Weekly Standard

Continue Reading.....

Study: Food Stamps Most Rapidly Growing Welfare Program

Food stamps are the most inefficient, vastly expanding social welfare program in the country, according to a new study.

Forty-seven million people participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps, and costs have increased over 358 percent since 2000.

The increase in recent years cannot be attributed to the economic recession, according to Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, but lax eligibility requirements and an aggressive campaign by governments to boost their rolls.

“This program has expanded rapidly over the last decade in a way that is not justified by the recession that we went through,” Tanner said.

“There’s very little bang for all this increased buck.”

Tanner’s report, “SNAP Failure: The Food Stamp Program Needs Reform,” finds that in 2000 the cost of the food stamp program was just $17 billion. It has risen in cost to $78 billion today.

Spending on advertising and outreach for food stamps by federal and state governments has also increased, now amounting to $41.3 million a year.

States like Florida have hired “food stamp recruiters,” who have a quota of signing up 150 new recipients each month. Rhode Island hosts “SNAP-themed bingo games,” and the USDA tells its field offices to throw parties to get more people on their rolls.

Despite the additional spending, the USDA claims 18 million Americans are still “food insecure.”

Tanner notes the program is more successful in breeding dependence on government, which was apparent last weekend when the EBT system shutdown in several states, resulting in chaos.

Via: WFB

Continue Reading.....

Los Angeles welfare bum threatens riot over EBT failure

In a man on the street interview, posted to World Star Hip-Hop, residents on Los Angeles’ Skid Row threaten to tear the city apart over a hiccup in their welfare benefits.

The outage of the Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) system was apparently caused when the vendor Xerox Corp. was performing a routine check on their back up systems and it caused a system failure.

While there are some reports that the system has come back online now, the interruption to the service has caused some raised tempers.

“My heart goes out to people who don’t have food right now” one welfare recipient told WSHH.

Another man explained how he and his cohorts had been personally impacted by the failure of the system. “We had to cancel a picnic today cuz we were gonna use EBT cards to buy hamburgers and stuff.”

The man, wearing a Vietnam veterans hat,  explained that he was organizing a cookout for veterans but had to cancel it due to the failure. “We couldn’t do it,” he said.

One man told WSHH the bare reality of what the system failure meant for him. “We don’t eat,” he said. “We don’t drink. We don’t have anything.”

But not all the shiftless takers were content merely to complain.

“They had better resolve something because if it stays like this there is gona be a uproar in the city of L.A.,” one public assistance layabout intoned. When asked to elaborate, he responded, “A Rodney King, baby”

The Rodney King riots, which went on for six-day in 1992 in South Central L.A., stemmed from the acquittal of four Los Angeles Police Department officers on charges of police brutality for the videotaped beating of King. Fifty-three people died in the riots and more than 2,000 people were injured.

Via: Weasel Zippers

Continue Reading.....

On the Anniversary of Welfare Reform, It’s Time for the Next Round of Welfare Reforms

Seventeen years ago, on August 22, 1996, President Clinton signed into law the most sweeping changes ever made to our nation’s safety net. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program was the centerpiece of these reforms, replacing the New Deal-era Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. TANF had a new mandate to help those in need by supporting and rewarding work and assisting low-income families in becoming self-sufficient. In the wake of the work-based 1996 welfare reforms, work and earnings in households headed by single mothers increased, child poverty in female-headed households has fallen, and welfare caseloads have declined remarkably.

Commenting on the success of welfare reform and the need to apply a similar approach across the programs designed to assist low-income families, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) stated, “Clearly, the best way out of poverty is a job, and welfare reform has been successful because it underscored how reform can both foster job creation and ensure welfare is a pathway to a better life. The 1996 welfare reform law is a model for reforming other safety-net programs so that we use our resources effectively to truly help those in need – not from a hand out, but from a hand up.”
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee stated, “The landmark 1996 bipartisan welfare reform law successfully moved millions of Americans from welfare to work. Seventeen years later, it’s time for Congress to fully examine this law to ensure it fits today’s realities. Water-downed work requirements coupled with lax oversight and misguided government spending is pushing our safety-net programs in the wrong direction. It’s time we take stock of these programs – what’s working and what isn’t – to ensure that the backbone of government assistance is work, not just a blank paycheck.”

Even 17 years after these reforms, many of our nation’s other safety-net programs have yet to be reformed. In fact, most low-income benefit programs have few expectations of those receiving benefits, offer little help to support and reward work, and continue to spend more each year without showing that they’re really helping those in need. The Ways and Means Committee has held a number of hearings this year focused on our nation’s safety net and how it can be improved to help low-income families and individuals move up the economic ladder. Below are key selections from testimony at these hearings, along with related information highlighting how our current system isn’t working. It’s time to undertake another round of welfare reforms to ensure those in need are receiving real help to get back on their feet and move up the economic ladder.

Via: House Ways and Means

Continue Reading....