Wednesday morning links

"Before and After Welfare Handouts"

Welfare is a nefarious program under the guise of doing good. No parent would want welfare for their child, certain,y no good parent would. It is demeaning, it encourages sloth and it destroys ambition. It does these things intentionally as it would be easy to devise a program to help the poor that encourages them to improve their lives. I believe that welfare was designed to create a captive voting block for the left and as a stepping stone to socialism. It needs radical reform, it is bankrupting us and destroying lives.

#1 GoneWithTheWind on 2018-05-09 10:11 (Reply)

While I agree that the welfare state is largely a political thing, it might also be the easiest and cheapest way to deal with dysfunctional people. Sadly, it does their lives not much good.

#1.1 bd on 2018-05-09 10:15 (Reply)

Deal with, but not actually help.

#1.1.1 Sam L. on 2018-05-09 11:55 (Reply)

John Kerry: Proved himself to be untrustworthy.

#2 Sam L. on 2018-05-09 12:05 (Reply)

Let's see, just picking a few instances: he lied in Congressional hearings, he pretended to through his medals over the White House fence, and with respect to funding for the Iraq & Afghanistan war, he "actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it."

Was there ever any reason to trust him?

#2.1 mudbug on 2018-05-09 12:22 (Reply)

I don't think I've ever seen any decent reason to...

#2.1.1 JLawson on 2018-05-09 13:01 (Reply)

Still has yet to be tried for treason over Vietnam.

#2.1.1.1 Jim on 2018-05-09 14:11 (Reply)

And where IS the Gang of Z to tell us how WRONG we are? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm??

#2.1.1.1.1 Sam L. on 2018-05-09 20:07 (Reply)

In the fashion of Jengis Khan.

#2.1.1.1.2 scullman on 2018-05-09 21:35 (Reply)

Re: Mullahs Accidentally Confirm the Iran Deal Was a Sham

Good to read, but they already admitted they didn't sign it:

QUOTE:

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA never submitted his Iranian nuclear deal for ratification by the Congress because he knew it would have no chance of passing. That does not make the United States unique: The Iranian parliament has never approved it either (that body passed a heavily amended version) and the Iranian president has never signed it. The Iranian cabinet has never even discussed it. And the other members of the P5+1 – Britain, China, Germany, France and Russia – have likewise given it short legal shrift. Indeed, President Obama "may end up being the only person in the world to sign his much-wanted deal, in effect making a treaty with himself," as the Gatestone Institute's Amir Taheri has said.

(https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2016-01-21/obamas-iran-nuclear-deal-is-a-bad-deal-off-to-a-worse-start)

That was written in Jan. 2016 and, in and of itself, showed it was a sham.

#3 mudbug on 2018-05-09 13:54 (Reply)

Connecticut OKs Bill Pledging Electoral Votes To National Popular-Vote Winner

QUOTE:

Connecticut is poised to commit its electoral votes to whichever U.S. presidential candidate wins the nation's popular vote — regardless of who wins the state.

By embracing the plan, Connecticut's General Assembly gave new momentum to a push to change the way Americans elect their president.

Ten states and the District of Columbia are already in a compact to pool their electoral votes and pledge them to the popular-vote winner. With Connecticut added, the compact's voting power would rise to 172 — fewer than 100 electoral votes away from the 270-vote majority that decides the presidential contest.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/07/609060190/connecticut-oks-bill-pledging-electoral-votes-to-national-popular-vote-winner

#4 feeblemind on 2018-05-09 14:11 (Reply)

Yeah, I remember Iran bragging at the time that only the U.S. and other signatories were bound, because Iran hadn't signed it. Apparently no one in Iran had taken Contracts 101. And Obama apparently didn't pay much attention at HLS either. But then again, he got himself elected editor in chief of the law review without ever having written anything, a first in HLS history. I could say Black Privilege, but that would be racist.

#4.1 Jim on 2018-05-09 14:16 (Reply)

President of the Harvard Law Review.

Huge difference.

#4.1.1 drowningpuppies on 2018-05-09 15:17 (Reply)

Except that it won't.

Members of the Electoral College are a) free to vote from whomever they choose, without consequence from state governments (they gain their authority from and only from the Federal Constitution) and b) this legislation can be rescinded at any time, since it is not a State Constitutional Amendment Theoretically if the party in power does not like the popular vote winner, they could reverse the legislation between the casting of the popular vote and the meeting of the Electors.

A serious attempt to change the electoral College would involve calling for a convention to amend the Federal constitution.

#4.2 another guy named Dan on 2018-05-09 14:51 (Reply)

Marketing genius, diet water

http://www.fitclarity.com/diet-water-what-is-it-all-about/

#5 feeblemind on 2018-05-09 14:57 (Reply)

Re: diet water
A couple of times I've purchased an item at the grocery store only to find out when I got home that it wasn't at all what I thought it was. You have to spend at least 15 minutes in the ice cream aisle working you way through "no fat", (made with some kind of creamy substance that tastes more like powdered cement than actual cream) and "no sugar", (made with horrible tasting fake sweeteners that will gag you) and other weird concoctions to find the very few regular ice creams left on the shelves. If I didn't want fat or sugar, which actually taste great, why would I be in the ice cream aisle?

They don't actually label the products sugar free anymore, the label says, "less sugar". I fell for that, wondering "why would they put sugar in orange juice? I ended up with wasting money on a juice that I couldn't drink because it tasted like saccharine. Yech.

#6 LP on 2018-05-09 17:32 (Reply)

Re: Fleeing California

This past week though my pastor mentioned he'd spoken to two new families in town that fled from California and Minnesota; they fled for religious reasons rather than economic.

#7 molloaggie on 2018-05-10 20:17 (Reply)

QUOTE:

California Residents Flee, Chased Away By Soaring Home Prices And Cost Of Living

Bird Dog: The middle class is exiting

The article indicates that lower income people are leaving, with higher income people arriving. "Most people leaving the state earn less than $30,000 per year, even as those who can afford higher housing costs are still arriving." This is consistent with retirees accounting for a large portion of emigration, along with lower-skilled workers.

#7.1 Zachriel on 2018-05-11 06:06 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Wednesday, May 9. 2018

Wednesday morning links