Manipulation by Democrats

The average benefit for food stamp recipients is currently $113.41 per month. The food stamp program was re-named SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) for politically correct purposes, but the “assistance” it provides is still not intended to be the only means of paying for food. Otherwise, the “A” (for Assistance) in SNAP would not be there.

Apparently, 26 Democrats in Congress are too dense to understand that or are just putting on a show in the media by taking what is being called the “SNAP Challenge” in order to protest a Farm Bill that, if passed, will reduce food stamp benefits. (Why a “Farm Bill” is dealing with food stamps is a whole different problem.) This SNAP Challenge is to live off of $4.50 per day for food to show how difficult that is, eliciting sympathy for keeping and/or increasing the current food stamp benefit.

Food stamps were never intended to be used in that manner, but idealism is blind to reality. This challenge involves spending $4.50 per day instead of buying in quantity like those actually receiving food stamps would do. It is a transparent ploy to make things seem as bad as possible. Would you buy just one apple or one hot dog per day if you actually had to subsist on food stamps? Would you buy them from an “organic” food store where prices are exorbitant? Would you buy pre-packaged, individually wrapped cheese slices? Would you buy just one apple?

The media, of course, loves this SNAP challenge and treats it as if it is a display of sensitivity in a creative, witty way instead of political theater. Unfortunately, many voters are manipulated easily. They bought the lie of being able to keep the health insurance they have and still believe health care premiums will go down. It’s a small step to believe food stamps should pay for all the food one needs. Don’t be surprised if it becomes one of Hillary’s campaign promises.

David J. Hentosh

It’s All About the Kids, Right?

From Ben Shapiro at Breitbart

…in the Los Angeles Unified School District, two perfect attendees throughout high school received new Chevrolet Sonics, priced at $18,000, for showing up to school every day. During the 2012-2013 school year, LAUSD has handed out monthly prizes to kids who were present every day…the LAUSD system is paid by the state of California only for attendance. Every student is worth $32 per day from the state to the LAUSD system. That means that when students skip school, the unionized teachers and administrators pay the price…It isn’t Oprah running LAUSD and handing out cars. It’s the teachers unions, which are mainly concerned with creating bizarre incentive systems to get butts in the seats rather than knowledge in the brains.

 

Read it here: Attendance Challenge

DJH

 

Rubio Has It Backwards

Sen. Marco Rubio stated: “First comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residence.” The security of this country should ALWAYS come first and if Rubio doesn’t understand that, he needs to go. Border security has been neglected far too long and a focus on social issues over security is dangerous and irresponsible.

Rubio’s backward agenda is one more sign that conservative values are being eroded by media pressure and vote pandering. The leftward shift of the political middle ground is being assisted by those who are freely giving up ground in a foolish effort to be popular with the loudest segment of the population rather than be true to long-held conservative values. This is an abandonment that will have dire consequences. Then again,  consequences no longer seem to matter.

David J. Hentosh

Progressive Immigration Failure in Sweden

Progressives love to point to Sweden as an example of the type of utopian society they believe their agenda creates, but this past week’s riots in Sweden are a direct result of the continuing denial such an agenda demands. In the face of these riots, that denial continues as the press tries hard not to report that the overwhelming majority of rioters are Muslims.

Starting in the 80’s, Sweden began admitting a large number of third world immigrants, creating a generous welfare system to help them settle and assimilate. Economic and political upheaval in countries such as Somalia, Eritrea, Afghanistan and Iraq brought a huge number of Muslims to welcoming Sweden. Rather than assimilate, however, they created their own communities mirroring the values and traditions of their Muslim homelands.

The progressive, non-judgmental attitude prevalent in Sweden not only allowed these communities to shun assimilation, it allowed, and encouraged, an entire generation of Muslim immigrants to grow dependent on the welfare system while being infused with values and traditions that clash with Western societies. The violence towards the West found in the Middle East Muslim world, therefore, became part of their upbringing.

As Sweden tries to address the economic burden of their welfare system and revamp immigration policies, accusations of discrimination abound from those who have benefited most from those progressive policies. The autonomous communities that have been allowed to form are becoming offensive to many and as refusal to change continues, discrimination will undoubtedly occur.

There is much confusion on the part of officials in Sweden concerning the riots. Fully engrossed in progressive idealism, they do not understand how the recipients of their generosity could do such a thing. For those without progressive blinders, it is an inevitable result of being conditioned to welfare and treated with non-judgmental deference.

There is a lesson to be learned from this, but it is highly doubtful progressives here will see it. They have the same idealistic blinders on, believing open immigration and unlimited welfare works. The mainstream media agrees and will continue to conceal the rot such policies bring. They are much too invested to turn back now and will not allow riots in Sweden to be an omen.

David J. Hentosh

Is the Obama Administration Imploding?

The Obama Administration’s incompetence, arrogance, and mistakes are becoming too big to hide. The liberal media’s pretense that all is well is cracking as the public slowly becomes informed rather than misled.

“What difference does it make?” was Hillary’s arrogant attempt to dismiss Senate Foreign Relations Committee concerns on Benghazi and advance an administration cover-up, but her transparent act of being offended has now become offensive to many. Hiding facts surrounding the death of Americans does, indeed, make a difference.

Obama’s re-election was protected by the Benghazi cover-up but Hillary’s presidential bid may now be in jeopardy. Senator Durbin (D-Ill.) can pretend the GOP is conducting a “witch hunt” because of fearing Hillary in 2016, but the real fear is that the entire Democrat Party will face dire consequences – and it should. The rubber-stamping Obama received from Democrats made this all possible.

Revelations of the IRS targeting non-profit groups such as the Tea Party for political purposes are further proof of an administration out of control, but blinders remain. Carl Bernstein declared that he “can’t imagine” President Obama is possibly involved in this IRS infraction, though he had no problem imagining Nixon’s involvement in a minor, bungled break-in, and helping to bring about his resignation because of it.

Much of the public has been kept in the dark and, therefore, also “can’t imagine” the depths of this administration’s errors and political tactics. The facts coming forth now do not rely on one’s imagination and should shock all out of the political stupor that has taken hold, but perhaps that is too optimistic a view.

Hillary for president is being advanced even in the wake of her Benghazi debacle. Joe Klein, on the Chris Matthews show (soon to become the “Hillary-for-President Show”), began the erasure of the 2008 liberal campaign theme that experience doesn’t count by stating that Hillary is “…one of the most experienced candidates we’ve ever had running for president”.

One can hope that Hillary’s “experience” in the Benghazi cover-up will be remembered and will count. Perhaps Obama’s administration will have completely imploded by then – that is, if the media will allow it. There is “Hope” for “Change” in 2016.

David J. Hentosh

Irreversible Damage

After the Boston bombings, a poll revealed that Fox News was the most watched and most trusted network covering the incident. Although the rejection of liberal biased networks is encouraging, damage caused by years of voter ignorance aided by media bias may be irreversible.

A recent poll shows that 42% of Americans don’t know that Obamacare has been passed into law. Unfortunately, many of these people vote. The hastily passed healthcare bill that is proving to be a disaster was sold to the public by a media vested in “making history” and reluctant to report on the bill’s failures. Congress is now trying to exempt itself from Obamacare while some unions, avid Obama backers, are trying to get many of its provisions repealed, but the media continues praising it.

Another poll shows that 55% of Americans don’t know that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the country, actually performs abortions. It receives taxpayer money based on the perception that its function is only women’s healthcare, a notion reinforced by President Obama stating publicly that Planned Parenthood provides mammograms, which it doesn’t.

The current trial of abortionist doctor Kermit Gosnell, accused of killing newborns as part of his abortion practice, went unmentioned by the mainstream media until it was forced to cover it because of the attention from Fox News and other responsible news outlets. The progressive media fully approves of abortion so it is reluctant to report anything negative concerning it.

Due to media-assisted voter ignorance, many abortion practices that most find despicable have taken root in society and flaws in Obamacare adversely affecting everyone have become law. It now seems likely that immigration reform will focus on amnesty and ignore border security, putting us all in danger for years to come.

Permanent damage has been done and more is sure to come if the biased media continues unfettered. A Republican White House would surely compel the liberal media to return to being a “watchdog” critically investigating administration policies. If that doesn’t occur, the damage already done will end up seeming miniscule compared to what is coming.

David J. Hentosh

Legal Immigration Needs Reform, Too

Once again, Ann Coulter shatters PC protocol and vocalizes what many think but fear to say. With so many people from around the world wanting to come to America, why is it that we refuse to be more selective with our immigration process? Bowing to diversity with our immigration policy is, literally, killing us.

From Ann Coulter

My thought is, maybe we should consider admitting immigrants who can succeed in America, rather than deadbeats…But we’re not allowed to “discriminate” in favor of immigrants who would be good for America. Instead of helping America, our immigration policies are designed to help other countries solve their internal problems by shipping their losers to us.

The problem isn’t just illegal immigration. I would rather have doctors and engineers sneaking into the country than legally arriving ditch-diggers…since 1969, about 85 percent of legal immigrants have come from the Third World. They bring Third World levels of poverty, fertility, illegitimacy and domestic violence with them. When they can’t make it in America, they simply go on welfare and sometimes strike out at Americans.

During the three years from 2010 through 2012, immigrants have committed about a dozen mass murders in this country, not including the 9/11 attack. The mass murderers were from Afghanistan, South Korea, Vietnam, Haiti, South Africa, Ethiopia and Mexico. None were from Canada or Western Europe…We ought to be able to do something about the people we chose to bring here.

Read it all here: The Problem Isn’t Just Illegal Immigration

DJH

Here Comes the Immigration Reform Farce

A bipartisan group of senators is ready to put forth a so-called “broad” immigration bill that is nothing but a farce. In today’s skewed political climate, “bipartisan” is only mentioned when conservatives cave in to the loud, shrill demands of the left. If a liberal moves to the right, he is called a traitor, a racist, or much worse, but never “bipartisan”.

Amnesty, the only goal of progressives’ immigration reform, is on the way. The “bipartisan” demand to secure the borders first, an absolute necessity before real immigration reform can begin, was given lip service and then watered-down to appease the “bipartisan” senators who will now pretend they fought hard for, and won, a working compromise.

The bill allows ten years of planning and/or securing the borders before any real impediment to citizenship can be put into place for failing to comply. Meanwhile, a path to citizenship for illegals will begin immediately with nothing to stop it from morphing into full-blown amnesty. In the span of ten years with little border security, that “path” to citizenship will become a fully paved, toll-free, four-lane, busy highway.

True comprehensive immigration reform is impossible until the borders are secure. Therefore, other immigration reforms will not even become a topic for discussion. One of those other reforms in need of addressing is assimilation.

According to a Hudson Institute’s comparison study of native-born to naturalized American citizens, native-born Americans are: 30% more likely to consider themselves American rather than citizens of the world; 30% more likely to believe the U.S. Constitution is a higher legal authority than international law; 31% more likely to believe schools should focus on American citizenship rather than ethnic pride; and 23% more likely to believe all citizens understand English.

Assimilation allowed the US to become a successful “melting pot” never before seen in the history of the world. We have become a less cohesive society the more we have ignored the importance of assimilation. We can’t realistically address this or other reforms until the borders are secure. This latest bill is a farce, reforms nothing, and opens the door to chaos.

David J. Hentosh

Putting the Cat Back in the Bag

Once the proverbial cat is out of the bag, it is next to impossible to get it back in. So it has been with laws. Once on the books, it has been very, very hard to get a law repealed unless, that is, repeal dovetails with the progressive agenda.

Colorado is set to erase the crime of adultery from its books in order to “keep the government out of people’s bedrooms” and because the law is “archaic”. It seems we are to ignore that the government has already been in our bedrooms forcing health insurers to pay for abortions and provide free contraception. As long as the government is watering-down morality, bedroom intrusion is acceptable.

The traditional family unit is no longer considered as important as self-gratification. Adultery, divorce, abortion, out-of-wedlock pregnancy, and open marriage have not only become acceptable, they are often being advocated. An entire generation has been raised with a low regard for the family unit and are left with no cornerstone for building the future.

Obamacare was passed hastily in order to satisfy Obama’s personal desire for universal health care. He did not read or understand the bill beforehand and didn’t care how damaging it could be as long as it was passed. Unfortunately, it will now be very difficult to get any of it changed or repealed. The common good was neglected in order to benefit 10% of the population – and there is no going back.

Gun control and immigration reform are the current cats being let out of the bag. Both require a serious and impartial analysis of consequences, but both will be handled by knee-jerk, emotional legislation instead. Years from now, there will be a lot of consternation as legislators try to repeal thE soon-to-be hastily passed laws. They will chase those cats for a long time but they will never get them back in the bag.

David J. Hentosh

40 Years After Vietnam

The last US combat troops left Vietnam forty years ago on March 29, 1973. This was a result of a so-called “peace agreement” signed in Paris, but no peace occurred in South Vietnam. In fact, the ensuing year after the agreement was more deadly in South Vietnam than any year of the war.  That’s because the US wanted out of Vietnam, cared little about consequences, and declared “peace with honor” by signing an agreement everyone knew would not be honored by North Vietnam.

The US abandoned South Vietnam; much like it is abandoning Iraq and, eventually, will abandon Afghanistan (the “good” war). That is the lesson we learned from the Vietnam War. Declaring a politically incorrect war to be over is as good as a victory if it can be “sold” to the public as a win. That has now been expanded to simply declaring the economy to be fine, declaring the deficit to be no problem, declaring contraception to be a right, or declaring that the rich pay no taxes. Ideology trumps all.

One’s opinion of the Vietnam War is irrelevant to the issue of abandonment. A commitment was made to South Vietnam as part of the “peace agreement” to provide assistance if North Vietnam continued aggression, but a Democrat-controlled Congress refused that assistance when it quickly became needed. The US blatantly reneged on its commitment, abandoning South Vietnam to a total collapse and slaughter – because of ideology.

With war comes a responsibility, regardless of the reasons for the war. One should enter into war with clear goals and to win, or don’t enter into it at all. Allowing changing social mores, public opinion, or ideology to override responsibility or dictate rules of engagement is wrong. A “humane” war is an oxymoron and a losing strategy. War is hell, and hell should be entered only with good reason and traversed through as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Forty years after Vietnam, we have still not learned. Our enemies, on the other hand, learned well: Stick it out long enough and the US will tire and retreat. Where is the honor in that?

David J. Hentosh