House bans welfare recipients’ money from strip clubs, liquor stores
The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a bill that prohibits welfare recipients from using their government subsidy in strip clubs, liquor stores and casinos.
The measure easily received the necessary support of two-thirds of House members, with 395 voting in favor and only 27 opposing.
So this was a very bi-partisan vote. Funny how CBS doesn’t use the word. But we thought bi-partisanship was wonderful.
House Republicans introduced and promoted the proposal as a way to eliminate government wasteful spending. It has passed the House before, and they re-introduced it again hoping it will become part of a bill to extend the payroll tax credit, which both the House and Senate is expected to debate this month.
The Senate has not agreed to take up the measure….
An effort by Senate Republican Leader Bob Dutton (R-Rancho Cucamonga) to move California closer to making sure that those who receive welfare use those taxpayer funds as effectively and efficiently as possible was killed by Democrats during a hearing of the Senate Human Services Committee this week.
Senate Bill 417 would have prohibited those who receive welfare from using their Electronic Benefits Card (EBT) for the purchase of alcohol or tobacco products. Currently, those with EBT cards receive both their food stamps and welfare money, called CalWORKS benefits, on the ETB card. While current law does not allow recipients to use their food stamp portion of their benefits to purchase alcohol or tobacco, they can buy those items with the CalWORKS funds.
“You would think a simple common sense reform like trying to make sure taxpayer money is not used for the purchase of alcohol and tobacco would find bi-partisan support,” Senator Dutton said.
Abuses of the EBT card has received national attention over the last year, after the Los Angeles Times reported how millions of dollars of taxpayer money was being withdrawn with EBT cards from Indian Gaming Casinos, strip clubs, cruise ships, and Las Vegas. While the Governor issued an Executive Order to stop the use of EBT cards at these locations, it did not address stopping the purchase of alcohol or tobacco.
“These funds are designed to help the neediest in California meet their basic requirements of providing food, clothing and shelter,” Senator Dutton said. “I doubt there’s not a taxpayer in this state who believes purchasing alcohol or tobacco with welfare money constitutes a basic need and should be allowed.”
I also wrote on this topic after the L.A. Times broke the story, which states:
The Capitol Casino, which occupies a pair of small rooms a few blocks from the legislative chambers in Sacramento, appears on the social services website showing where clients can get money. Each room has an ATM: one is so close to a poker table that a player with long arms could lean back and withdraw cash without leaving his chair; the other is a few steps from the blackjack table.
At the Casino Royale on the outskirts of Sacramento, the first thing patrons pass as they walk to the gaming floor is the ATM with a sign next to it saying, “Exceed your ATM daily limit here!!”….
Chris Wallace lays out some revealing info at 15:55 to 2:31… and Peter Strzok was the guy who started this. Ahhhh. ‘Fox News Sunday’ anchor Chris Wallace comments on release of GOP memo on alleged surveillance abuses.
Neil Cavuto, former FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker and former Justice Department official Robert Driscoll weigh in on Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) comments on the release of the FISA memo and how the memo impacts the FBI.
Tic-Toc — more coming!
Jay Sekulow, lawyer for President Trump reacts on ‘Hannity’ to information released in declassified FISA memo.
Laura Ingraham, from the moment he came down that shiny escalator in Trump Tower, Donald Trump represented an existential threat to the DC Swamp.
The Five, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence releases memo alleging bias in the investigation of the Trump campaign.
The ‘Special Report’ All-Star panel weighs in.
Tucker Carlson, controversial GOP memo states discredited Russia dossier was key to FBI’s FISA warrant to surveil members of Trump’s team.
(This post has been updated/edited a few times since May of 2017)
My first comment is that the Left weaponizes and diminishes what it “leaches” on to. Second, here is the modern issue put forward by Dr. John Gartner, PH.D., Psychologist and author. Yes, he is “shopping” his book:
PSYCHOLOGY TODAY has a mediocre article… even though they get it wrong… but I liked this part:
…The Goldwater Rule is as valid as ever, insists Steven Berglas, a Los Angeles psychologist and executive coach and consultant. What’s more, he says, Gartner’s petition is a flagrant misuse of the DSM. “You cannot discern from public behavior whether a person’s behavior represents an authentic personality style or is choreographed.” How do we know, he asks, that Trump isn’t “throwing paint balls at the wall, creating chaos so that he can dial it down later to get what he wants.” In fact, he points out, the President seems to be behaving quite rationally in that he is fulfilling his campaign promises.
“I specialize in narcissists, says Berglas. “Many effective leaders are narcissists. Diagnosis is not a cudgel to be tossed around in anger.” And in fact, he believes that doing so is a disservice to the field. The DSM is meant to guide treatment and referrals, and it loses value when it is applied to diagnosis at a distance. He thinks the DSM should come with a warning label: Don’t use this at home.
Calling Gartner’s petition “a temper tantrum,” Berglas insists that keeping out terrorists the wrong way does not warrant calling Trump mentally ill. And the fact that Donald Trump mocked a reporter is deplorable but doesn’t mean he’ll be faster to press the nuclear button….
Above, Dennis Prager discusses Dr. Gartner’s article and petition saying Donald Trump is a danger to society and the world. Prager reads from and comments from Dr. John Gartner’s article in USA TODAY “Donald Trump’s malignant narcissism is toxic: Psychologist”. The same “psychoanalysis” happened to Barry Goldwater, and since there has been the “GOLDWATER RULE” –
On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement. ~ “The Principles of Medical Ethics With Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry“. American Psychiatric Association (2013 ed.).
What Dr. Gartner is practicing sounds like “transference,” which is this:
1.Conveyance of an object from one place to another.
3.Displacement of affectfromoneperson or oneidea to another; in psychoanalysis,generallyapplied to theprojection of feelings,thoughts,andwishesontotheanalyst,whohascome to representsomepersonfromthepatient’spast.
It sounds like Dr. Gartner may need some counseling. Here is another article linked at my YouTube by 4TIMESAYEAR:
The psychiatrist who defined narcissistic personality disorder says President Trump may be a “world-class narcissist,” but claims that the president is mentally ill is an insult to those who truly are.
Dr. Allen Frances, a professor emeritus of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University Medical College, wrote in his letter to The New York Times this week that diagnosing Trump at a distance is not an appropriate way to push back on his policies.
“Fevered media speculation about Donald Trump’s psychological motivations and psychiatric diagnosis has recently encouraged mental health professionals to disregard the usual ethical constraints against diagnosing public figures at a distance,” Frances wrote.
“Most amateur diagnosticians have mislabeled President Trump with the diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder. I wrote the criteria that define this disorder, and Mr. Trump doesn’t meet them. He may be a world-class narcissist, but this doesn’t make him mentally ill, because he does not suffer from the distress and impairment required to diagnose mental disorder,” the doctor added.
Frances argued that putting Trump in the same category as the mentally ill is an “insult” to those who suffer from mental conditions.
“It is a stigmatizing insult to the mentally ill (who are mostly well behaved and well meaning) to be lumped with Mr. Trump (who is neither),” he wrote.
“Bad behavior is rarely a sign of mental illness, and the mentally ill behave badly only rarely….
To follow is a more recent attack by psychology professionals [and legislators! Sad] that again show the lack of concern for the medical ethics involved, and make the profession that truly helps people more of a tarrot card reading with a political flavor to it.
The DAILY CALLER notes that the Yale University psychology professor who called President Trump “mentally impaired” appears to lack a valid license to practice psychiatry in her home state of Connecticut (h-t WEASEL ZIPPERS). The WASHINGTON EXAMINERadds a call by the American Psychological Association (APA) to “cease-and-desist”
The American Psychiatric Association urged members of its profession to uphold its decades-long principle that psychiatrists should never offer diagnostic opinions about people they haven’t personally examined, in light of President Trump’s impending medical exam and questions about his mental fitness.
“We at the APA call for an end to psychiatrists providing professional opinions in the media about public figures whom they have not examined, whether it be on cable news appearances, books, or in social media,” the group wrote. “Arm-chair psychiatry or the use of psychiatry as a political tool is the misuse of psychiatry and is unacceptable and unethical.”
The rebuke came Tuesday as politicians and members of the media were ratcheting up their rhetoric about Trump’s mental health. Earlier in the day, Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Brendan Boyle unveiled legislation that would require presidential candidates to have a medical exam and publicly disclose the results before the general election. Joe Scarborough also has said on his MSNBC program “Morning Joe” that Trump has dementia, and more than a dozen lawmakers have discussed Trump with a Yale University psychiatrist who said that Trump was “going to unravel, and we are seeing the signs.” The psychiatrist, Dr. Brandy Lee, who has not examined Trump, edited The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, which includes testimonials from 27 psychiatrists and mental health experts.
But the association reminded its members that one of its core principles, known as the “Goldwater Rule,” has been in place since 1973 and states that psychiatrists should not publicly issue medical opinions about people they haven’t personally examined in a medical context….
Representing “The O’Reilly Factor,” correspondent Jesse Watters attended the annual Sundance Film Festival to talk some politics and see if any celebrities would admit they are disappointed with President Barack Obama’s job performance.
Actress Marisa Tomei walked away when Watters asked her about Obama, saying “yuck” to the simple question. Meanwhile, actor Philip Seymour Hoffman “abruptly ended his smoke break” when he saw him approaching….
Jesse Watters went to Sundance Film Festival and spoke to a few actors and actresses about Obama and politics. When he got to Mark Ruffalo, who played the Hulk in Avengers, he brought Benghazi up and this liberal buffoon had the audacity to blame Republicans for Benghazi because he said they cut funding for security – even though we know that is absolutely false based on congressional testimony. Which is why we call him a buffoon.
A while ago, Breitbart put up this exchange in Congress about this very issue:
The Daily Callermakes the point that i will follow up on with an example from the Bush days about veterans benefits:
…“Since gaining the majority in 2011, House Republicans have voted to reduce embassy security funding by approximately half a billion dollars below the amounts requested by the Obama Administration,” the memo reads. “Although the Senate has been able to restore a small portion of these funds, the final appropriations enacted by Congress in the previous two Fiscal Years have been far below the amounts requested by the Administration for embassy security, and far below the levels enacted in Fiscal Year 2010, the last year Democrats controlled the House.”
What Cummings and the Democratic Oversight Committee staff are referring to is the final fiscal year 2012 omnibus appropriations package that included $2.075 billion for the programs – $567.5 million less than the Obama administration’s request.
Cummings and the Democratic staff memo don’t mention that Democrats made those cuts into embassy security funding possible.
In testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, “Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”
Lamb responded, “No, sir.”
Recall that Lamb is the person who denied requests from the top diplomatic security officer in Libya to retain a 16-man team of military personnel who had been protecting diplomats.
…the woman responding “no” in the video above, said “no”. A tactic used often in politics is to say somethig is “cut” that is merely a decrease IN ACTUAL increases in spending. From the Bush days we heard Democrats harping that Bush “cut” veterans benefits, when they have increased every year till then:
(Only in politics can an increase in a budget be considered a negative.) And this budget graph (below) likewise supports that the State Department got all the monies needed for their security, via Heritage (h/t, Publius1787):
….It is tempting to look for a scapegoat for the tragic events in Libya. However, if one exists, the overall budget for embassy security is not it. Funding for that purpose has risen sharply over the past decade. Moreover, the State Department has considerable latitude in allocating security funds based on current events and intelligence on possible threats. Why that latitude was not applied in Libya deserves further scrutiny.