Once again, conservatives were right!

But the left will say that welfare isn’t being abused!

Here’s What Happened When Maine Forced People to Actually Work for Welfare

Republican Gov. Paul LePage of Maine decided last year that he had to do something about the rampant, out of control welfare abuse in his state, specifically concerning the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

So late last year, LePage began enforcing new requirements stating that in order for non-disabled residents to receive SNAP benefits that they would be required to work at least twenty hours per week, volunteer or attend  vocational training.

Guess what happened as a result? Out of the 12,000 non-disabled welfare recipients without children who were on the rolls last year, only 2,680 remain as of now, according to David Sorensen, spokesman for the Department of Health and Services.1

That’s a staggering 9,000-plus welfare leeches who lost their benefits simply due to an unwillingness to better themselves — proving that a staggering number of people receive welfare only because it provides for their needs without their actually having to work.

More at the original.

Apparently, there really were jobs out there for the able-bodied welfare recipients to take. Given that our economy has been basically importing Mexicans to do jobs that good American citizens wouldn’t do, I’d guess that if every state did what Maine did, we’d find a whole lot of welfare recipients across the country would be able to find jobs, and we’d reduce the influx of illegal immigrants at the same time, because there would be fewer jobs for them to take.

  1. This link was not in the original, but added by the Editor.

Karmic Justice!

From The American Thinker:

Exec who mocked Chick-Fil-A now on food stamps
By Ethel C. Fenig | March 28, 2015

My, what a difference two and a half years and a nasty, self righteous video by a nasty, self righteous man make.  In the summer of 2012, an individual who could only accept diversity, pluralism and multi culturalism as long as it agreed with his politically correct notions, posted a video of himself harassing a Chick-Fil-A order taker on Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day. That was the day those who actually believed in diversity, pluralism and multi culturalism chose to support the fast food chain against those who disagreed with the founder who opposed gay marriage.  The founder didn’t say he would fire gay people or those who were involved in this type of union, merely he didn’t agree with it.  Hot air ensued. . . . .

Adam Smith– no, not the famed free market historic economist – was not as accepting.

Smith decided to go through the drive-thru at his local Chick-Fil-A, where he ordered a free water — the fast food chain offers customers free water — and videotaped himself telling the drive-thru attendant how much he despised Chick-Fil-A.

“Chick-Fil-A is a hateful corporation,” Smith said, in part, to the drive-thru attendant. “I don’t know how you live with yourself and work here. I don’t understand it. This is a horrible corporation with horrible values. You deserve better.”

Smith then posted the video on his personal YouTube channel, but when he got back to work, he received a major shock.

“I got into work and the receptionist, the first thing, big eyes, ‘Adam, what did you do?’ … she said, ‘The voicemail is completely full, and it’s full of bomb threats,’” Smith said in an exclusive interview with ABC News’ “20/20.”

Smith was fired that same day. He said at the time he was earning $200,000 annually and had over $1 million in stock options.

“It was taken when I lost my employment,” he said.  (snip)

Looking back at the video now, Smith said he was emotional.

“I don’t regret the stand I took, but I regret… the way I talked to her,” he told “20/20.”

Or maybe what he regrets is posting his idiocy on YouTube. There’s more on the original.

Think about what happened: a Chief Financial Officer of a medical device company in Arizona, with a salary of over $200,000 per year, and over a million dollars worth of stock options, not only was dumb enough to berate a drive-though window employee and film it, but then drove home — that took some time — uploaded it onto his computer, and then posted it on YouTube. This wasn’t just some dumb fast reaction, but a considered course of action; he has time to think about what he was doing, and did it anyway.

In other words, Mr Smith was fired for more than just the video — though that would certainly have been enough — but because he exhibited such poor judgement that no company ought to employ him as a chief financial officer. And now, he’s unemployed, making less than the (probably) minimum wage employee he berated, and on food stamps. I do have to wonder just how he qualifies for food stamps if he had over a million dollars in stock options, though perhaps he lost those along with his job.

I do have sympathy for his wife and four children.

Rule 5 Blogging: Basic training!

It’s the weekend and time, once again, for THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL’S version of Rule 5 Blogging. Robert Stacey Stacy McCain described Rule 5 as posting photos of pretty women somewhat déshabillé, but, on this site, our Rule 5 Blogging doesn’t put up pictures of Megan Fox in her summer clothes, but women, in full military gear, serving their countries in the armed forces. The terribly sexist authors on this site celebrate strong women, women who can take care of themselves and take care of others, women who have been willing to put their lives on the line in some not-so-friendly places, women who truly do have the “We can do it!” attitude.

Today, we go back to the beginning, to the basic training that every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine must pass.

Marine Corps Basic Training

Continue reading ‘Rule 5 Blogging: Basic training!’ »

From Around the Blogroll

From Robert Stacey Stacy McCain:

Keep in mind Democrat Gov. Jerry Brown has initiated a controversial prison “reform” program in California. In his first three years in office, Brown authorized the release of 1,400 criminals who had been sentenced to life in prison. Under Brown’s “reform,” California officials are releasing “non-violent” offenders from prison, which is why Robert L. Ranson was set free in June 2013:

He was considered a non-violent offender because his most recent prison term was for possession of a firearm by a felon. Ranson had previously served time for two carjackings and an assault with a firearm, prison officials said.

Robert L Ranson

Carjacking, assault, possession of a firearm by a felon — yeah, let’s just turn that guy loose. What could possibly go wrong?

A man on probation as a “non-violent offender” under California’s prison realignment program has been charged with kidnapping, raping, and torturing a 16-year-old girl in South Los Angeles, and detectives suspect he may be connected to three other recent murders. Robert L. Ranson, 30, was arrested in late March [2014] after the girl escaped from a U-Haul van in an alley near Imperial Highway and New Hampshire Ave., according to police and booking records. The girl was covered in gasoline and said her attacker, later identified as Ranson, had tied her hands and taped her mouth, and was trying to light her on fire when she ran away, naked.

Now they’re going to let sex offenders live near schools.

No way that policy could lead to trouble.

Will the last sane person leaving California please turn out the lights?

While I’m certain that it would be dismissed, the victims of crimes by the released “non-violent” offenders should sue Governor Jerry Brown and the California state legislature for the program which released these thugs. Put them on notice, and make them defend themselves. Sue them not only in their official capacities, but personally as well, sue them into penury.

The girl who was terrorized and raped and just barely escaped before being set on fire to be burned to death? The families of the three other recent murder victims the police think were committed by Mr Ranson? Why shouldn’t they have some justice over the decision by Governor Brown and his lackeys, why shouldn’t officials be held accountable for decisions that have such terrible consequences? Anyone with any common sense at all would have known that a man with Mr Ranson’s record was not someone who could be released without endangering the community, but Governor Brown and his minions did it anyway.

And now, the rest of the blogroll!

The left have been reduced to this!

Jason Scott, the proprietor of the Delaware Liberal, somehow thought that this was an important criticism of Senator Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign

Ted Cruz has a burning flag/Al Jazeera logo
Filed in National by on March 23, 2015 • 0 Comments
Ted Cruz has a burning flag/Al Jazeera logo

UPSO notes that “Ted Cruz’s new logo looks like a mix between the Al Jazeera logo and a burning flag. Weird.” TedCruz.org (Thanks, UPSO!)

For Mr Scott, that somehow constitutes highly sophisticated and intellectual commentary, that a logo symbol somehow takes a similar, but not identical, shape to someone else’s logo.

Of course, one would think that a liberal, a Democrat, a progressive, like Mr Scott would see this as a sign of the inclusiveness Mr Cruz brings to his campaign, but, alas! the proprietor of the Delaware Liberal lacks the capacity for deep thought and introspection.

And while The First Street Journal did not endorse Senator Cruz, or at least we haven’t thus far, we are amused by the lengths to which the left have already gone in attacking him.

The inefficiency of capital punishment

In 1991, Thomas Clyde Bowling was sentenced to death for the murders of Eddie and Tina Earley. The Earleys were sitting in their automobile outside of the Earley Bird Cleaners, a dry cleaning business in Lexington, Kentucky, that they owned, with their two-year-old son, when Mr Bowling shot them; their son was also shot, but survived.

Mr Bowling finally died, on Saturday, March 20, but he wasn’t executed; at age 62, he had been transferred from Death Row at the Kentucky State Penitentiary to the Nursing Care Facility at the Kentucky State Reformatory, in poor health due to complications stemming from cancer. He was then transferred to Baptist Health in LaGrange, where he was pronounced dead. The Usual Suspects claimed that Mr Bowling, who was retarded, was innocent, and tried to blame other people, but could never prove their case.

Mr Bowling had been on Death Row since 1991. Various appeals had kept Mr Bowling from the death chamber. The result is obvious: the Commonwealth of Kentucky kept a prisoner on death row for a quarter of a century, incurring not only the greater expenses of the isolation housing on death row, but the legal expenses associated with capital punishment appeals, and, in the end, he died due to his own poor health.

This was easily foreseeable: Mr Bowling was borderline retarded, and in Atkins v Virginia, the Supreme Court held, almost 13 years ago, that the execution of the mentally retarded violated the Eighth Amendment. Keeping Mr Bowling on Death Row after that — the Governor could have commuted his sentence to life in prison, and still not been “soft on crime” — was simply an unnecessary expense for a poor state.

Let’s be realistic: Mr Bowling died the way the vast majority of inmates on death rows across the nation will die: from something other than being executed. Here in Pennsylvania, we have 183 men and 3 women on death row, yet, since the national reinstatement of capital punishment in 1976 (Pennsylvania re-enacted its own capital punishment legislation in 1974), only three men have been executed in the Keystone State, and all three essentially “volunteered,” by dropping all of their appeals. No one has been executed in Pennsylvania against his will since the reinstitution of capital punishment, but the Commonwealth is still spending millions and millions of dollars to continue to pursue the death penalty.1 In that same period, Kentucky, with a current death row population of 32 men and one woman, has executed only three prisoners, and two of them volunteered; Kentucky’s last execution occurred on 2008. The Governor of the Blue Grass State has the sole authority to issue commutations of capital sentences.

Capital punishment in Kentucky, and in Pennsylvania, is a needless expense: both Commonwealths spend gobs of extra money to maintain death rows and fight prisoners’ appeals (while having to pay for the prisoners’ appeals themselves, in most cases!), and still the least likely cause of death for condemned men in both states is execution! It has been along time since I lived in Kentucky, but here in the Keystone State, prosecutors use capital punishment not to get criminals actually put to death, but as a method of telling the bad guys that we really, really disapprove of what they did . . . and to appear tough on crime before the next election.

My taxes are too high, just like taxes are too high for everyone in Pennsylvania, and the last thing that I want to see is tax dollars being wasted. Well, in Pennsylvania, and in Kentucky, they clearly are being wasted, on a system that doesn’t perform its (purported) duty. It would be a lot more efficient, and a lot less expensive, to simply end capital punishment, period. After all, it’s not like we are going to execute anyone anyway!

  1. Governor Tom Wolf (D-PA) issued a moratorium on executions in Pennsylvania, but does not have the authority to commute sentences on his own. The previous Governor, Tom Corbett, signed 48 separate death warrants, but no actual executions occurred during his four year term.

In the end, there can be only one!

From the Houston Chronicle:

Ted Cruz to announce presidential bid Monday
Senator will be first declared GOP candidate
By Theodore Schleifer | March 21, 2015 Updated: March 21, 2015 11:50 pm

Click to enlarge

Sen. Ted Cruz plans to announce Monday that he will run for president of the United States, accelerating his already rapid three-year rise from a tea party insurgent in Texas into a divisive political force in Washington.

Cruz will launch a presidential bid outright rather than form an exploratory committee, said senior advisers with direct knowledge of his plans, who spoke on condition of anonymity because an official announcement had not been made yet. They say he is done exploring and is now ready to become the first Republican presidential candidate.

The senator is scheduled to speak Monday at a convocation ceremony at Liberty University in Virginia, where he is expected to declare his campaign for the presidency.

Over the course of the primary campaign, Cruz will aim to raise between $40 million and $50 million, according to advisers, and dominate with the same tea party voters who supported his underdog Senate campaign in 2012. But the key to victory, Cruz advisers believe, is to be the second choice of enough voters in the party’s libertarian and social conservative wings to cobble together a coalition to defeat the chosen candidate of the Republican establishment.

More at the original; the Chronicle article isn’t particularly friendly toward Senator Cruz, but states, with a slightly derogatory undertone, that Mr Cruz has made few friends in Washington, but hopes to win based on what he sees as the difference between Republican voters and Republicans in government. Your Editor disagrees with the characterization “the chosen candidate of the Republican establishment”; the GOP leadership may have a preference, but the Republican primary voters choose the nominee.

The First Street Journal does not endorse Senator Cruz, at least, not yet. This early in the campaign — and while there are other supposed candidates out there, no one has yet actually declared — I see the choices as being between people who hold the right positions and say the right things, a category into which Mr Cruz certainly falls, and people who hold the right positions and say the right things and have actually gotten some of them done; in that category. Mr Cruz is absent, because he hasn’t held a position which would enable him to get a lot done. Prospective candidates like Governor Scott Walker (R-WI) and former Governor Rick Perry (R-TX)1 have held executive positions which enabled them to put conservative principles into actual governing policy. Former Governor Jeb Bush (R-FL) was able to get things done in leading his state, but he is less conservative than I would like.

I stated my criteria for choosing a candidate when Governor Perry withdrew in 2008:

  1. Someone with strong executive experience;
  2. Someone with strong conservative values; and
  3. Someone who could defeat President Obama.

President Obama cannot run again, so the third criterion changes to “Someone who can defeat the Democratic presidential nominee.” The nominee presumptive is former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is expected to announce her candidacy in April, but Mrs Clinton was also the 2008 Democratic nominee presumptive, and that didn’t work out as predicted.2

It’s along, long time until the nomination will be settled; it’s still more than nine months until the first contest, the Iowa caucuses. A lot can happen between now and then.3

  1. Governor Perry was the Editor’s preferred candidate in 2008, but he dropped out after a poor early performance as a candidate.
  2. I have stated previously that I did not believe that Mrs Clinton would run. She is 67 years old, looks every day of her age, does not look to be in the greatest of physical health, and knows, personally, how grueling the nomination campaign can be. It appears now that she will begin a campaign, but I still have serious doubts that she will be able to finish one.
  3. This article does not include a link to Senator Cruz’s campaign website, because it isn’t open yet. Once he has officially announced, I assume that the website will be opened, and I’ll add the link then.

Rule 5 Blogging: צְבָא הַהֲגָנָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל

It’s the weekend and time, once again, for THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL’S version of Rule 5 Blogging. Robert Stacey Stacy McCain described Rule 5 as posting photos of pretty women somewhat déshabillé, but, on this site, our Rule 5 Blogging doesn’t put up pictures of Megan Fox in her summer clothes, but women, in full military gear, serving their countries in the armed forces. The terribly sexist authors on this site celebrate strong women, women who can take care of themselves and take care of others, women who have been willing to put their lives on the line in some not-so-friendly places, women who truly do have the “We can do it!” attitude.

This week, we once again visit the צְבָא הַהֲגָנָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל Israeli Defense Force. With President Obama and his foreign policy team getting closer to a deal with Iran that Benjamin Netanyahu sees as an existential threat to the Jewish state, these women might be involved in war sooner than anyone expects.


Continue reading ‘Rule 5 Blogging: צְבָא הַהֲגָנָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל’ »

From Around the Blogroll

From The Wall Street Journal:

Acrimonious Week Tests U.S.-Israel Ties
One of the most tumultuous weeks in memory for relations between both countries ended on a note of deep estrangement
By Carol E Lee | March 20, 2015 7:45 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON—One of the most tumultuous weeks in memory for U.S.-Israel relations ended on a note of deep estrangement Friday, as the White House redoubled its criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

As the week closed, the Obama administration was refusing to take Mr. Netanyahu at his word after a second reversal of his position on a key issue in peace talks—the establishment of a Palestinian state as part of a “two-state solution.”

And the question of bonds between the U.S. and Israel took on a decidedly more partisan tint in Washington.

Among Republicans, House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio announced plans to visit Israel later this month. Mr. Boehner, infuriating the White House, invited Mr. Netanyahu to deliver a speech to Congress earlier this month to criticize Iran nuclear talks President Barack Obama is pursuing. Mr. Boehner’s trip is set to coincide with a deadline in nuclear talks of March 31.

Among administration officials, White House Chief of Staff Dennis McDonough on Monday will address the pro-Israel group J Street, which is publicly in favor of the two-state solution.

On Friday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest went so far as to portray Mr. Netanyahu as out of step even with Republican presidential administrations—including former President George W. Bush, who supported the two-state solution.

More at the link.

Now, what happened over the last week? It’s simple: 55% of Israeli voters, and over 60% of Israeli Jewish voters, voted for parties which will keep Benjamin Netanyahu in power. President Obama, in his belated “congratulatory” telephone call to Mr Netanyahu, told the Prime Minister that the United States would “reassess” aspects of its relationship with Israel. Mr Netanyahu backed off his campaign statement that there would be no Palestinian state under his watch, but, in all reality, his campaign statement was true: the Palestinians will never agree to terms which would give Israel as much security as the Prime Minister requires, and only if the Prime Minister is succeed by a total wimp — which is what President Obama wanted — would Israel agree to whatever Arab-tilted terms Mr Obama could negotiate.

A tweet after my own heart!

And now, on to the blogroll!