Screen Shot 2019-11-01 at 12.50.26 PM

By Nancy Thorner & Bonnie O’Neil –

Do our nation’s children and grandchildren take the United States’ prosperity, freedoms, and way of life for granted?  Most likely they do, often because they have never experienced anything different, such as most of us have not experienced the pain of being hungry because we have so little to eat.  But even if such a situation should develop, we do have family members or neighbors willing to help in time of financial trouble.  We also have both short-term and long-term government welfare programs that provide assistance for struggling families in need of food and/or shelter.

While agreeing to help people in need is an admirable thing to do, many of our citizens are unaware of the huge price tag of this compassion and generosity.  For instance, how many American citizens know that our government spent a whopping $349 billion in fiscal year 2018 on Federal welfare programs.  Even more astounding is that officials expect there will soon be a large increase in welfare payments that are anticipated to reach at least $1,118 billion, including $650 billion for Medicare alone.

Why then are there still thousands of children in the United States who go to bed hungry, when there are numerous welfare programs and state hospitals that offer help to those in need of both physical and mental help? The same applies to people living on our city streets. These people might need professional help to regain their lives, but their illness or drug dependency often prevents them from seeking or accepting the type of help that will last.

It can be easier for such people to get help from caring relatives or neighbors.  That works well if the problem is temporary.  However, those whose problems are more likely caused by an underlying illness should be urged to consult with local or state officials for a professional evaluation and possibly hospitalized until they are physically and emotionally healthy.  By asking the right questions, a professional health provider can determine what must be done to help these people regain the life they want.    

SNAP program breeds laziness
Government programs to help those in need are essential, but they can be abused.  When the public sees obvious examples of abuse, their negative resentment is justifiable.  For instance, have you been behind someone checking out at a grocery store and noticed the customer is buying bottles of whisky and wine and paying for them with a government issued debit card?   Have you asked the checker why he or she allowed that person to abuse the food welfare system by buying bottles of booze when it’s intended only for food items?  If so, you might receive this common answer, which is that the store doesn’t want a scene or problem in a line of customers waiting to pay for their items.  So, the store accepts the purchase, even knowing it is a violation, and our taxes paid for it.  
This Food Stamp solution, officially called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), makes up the largest portion of the budget of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The program aims to help lower-income families purchase food products.  In time those receiving the stamps complained the stamps were embarrassing to use in public places, because it identified them as someone needing government assistance. Rather than embarrass these people, a decade or so ago government officials decided it best to issue cards that resemble those the rest of us have and use.  Of course, the huge difference is we get a bill at the end of the month for the privilege of using a credit card, but welfare recipients do not pay a dime to anyone.  Where is the incentive for them to find a job and work 9 to 5?
What is wrong with this picture?  Perhaps you remember the way it once was.  Those who were out of work and in need of help relied on neighbors and/or their church for temporary assistance.  Most every church once had a “food closet” where, on the honor system people could pick food items for their families during hard financial times. That seemed to work out very well, with few abusing the system, unlike the new government system in place today where food stamps are easy to apply for, receive, and sold for money.  It was said that during the Obama administration people who didn’t qualify for food stamps were approached at random on the street and told they could sign up for the program regardless of their income.  During that same time, people were given free phones, with few questions asked and no proof of poverty needed. 
How much each state spends on welfare
In a study posted on January 4, 2018, the question was asked, Is Welfare Better Than a Job?: In 15 States, It Is.  Is America turning itself Into a ‘Lazy’ Free-Loading Nation? That may indeed be the path ahead because currently there are states that pay more in welfare than they do for those doing minimum wage work.    
According to NPR, only 55% of families receiving SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) benefits have one family member that is working. In fifteen U.S. states, the other 45% of recipients are not working.  Why should they?  According to 2013 Cato Institute Research, there are 15 states in which welfare recipients make more than full-time minimum wage. One other fact of interest is that statistics show it is Democrat  states that have the higher percent of  people on welfare programs. 
See here a map which shows how much money each state spends on welfare; however, no state comes close to California with a monstrous welfare population.   California is the biggest Democrat controlled welfare state with  New York, Illinois, and Pennsylvania close behind.  
Are we solving a problem or creating a larger one by this overwhelming government generosity that in many cases never stops?  Is our government’s generosity inadvertently creating a way of life rather than resolving  a temporary situation?  
We are a generous people, but that isn’t the point.  We should be asking why politically powerful officials find it advantageous to keep people dependent upon them rather than find ways to keep them employed.  The issue must be explored and  significant changes made.  Government financial assistance must be limited and temporary, unless there are documented facts provided to a state by a credible physician explaining why working is not feasible for their patient.  


The above issues are not confined to one state or even one region.  Neither are the blatant efforts by some in political positions to “take down” our current President, by any means possible.  Current leaders in the opposition party are acting in tandem with the Deep State.  This has given rise to our nation facing a crisis situation that the mainstream media is largely failing to report or, if reporting, using their own biased opinion rather than just reporting facts and allowing the public to decide.
Robert Green’s comments noted below offer an interesting explanation of what is happening today. Our forefathers gave us this amazing nation and form of government, with the warning it would be hard to keep.  While some adjustments are usually required during a period of time, the public should be cautious and respond when needed.
Comments by Green
“To protect the USA, we must first understand that there are now some among us who are doing their best to change the USA and replace it with a new system, Socialism, even though that system has failed wherever and whenever tried.  This is absolutely unacceptable and must be exposed.  
Senator Mike Lee made it very clear that ANY leader who aligns themselves with the proposed impeachment of our President is not just wrong, but that these people are seriously jeopardizing our nation and people by their actions and statements.  We are allowing a “whistle blower” and leaders of the opposition Party to cripple our nation with what can only be identified as unverifiable statements.  One can only wonder if our foreign enemies are plotting how they can use all of this to their advantage.  
The public may end up being the jurors who decide which Party and people are truthful and who is acting out of partisanship.  Will Democrats regret their overt intended “shot” at our President?  The jury providing that answer will be our nation’s voters.   
We witnessed the Democrat’s witch-hunt against Brett Kavanaugh.  Democrats put that poor guy through hell, just because he was too Conservative for them. We cannot continue to let members of the opposition deliberately destroy innocent people for political purposes. We appear to be witnessing frustrated losers who refuse to accept the majority’s opinion and the results of the ballot box. This is worrisome; it must stop.  The opposition Party seems not able to accept the decisions of our citizens and in frustration are making highly questionable decisions and enacting pathetic behavior to get attention.
As children who have temper tantrums and are embarrassments to their parents, so are current Democrats’ behavior towards President Trump, as the world watches and shakes their collective heads.”
Concluding thoughts
Are you involved and/or doing what you can to stay informed of important issues and information regarding political matters?   Are you sharing your knowledge and opinions with friends and elected officials?
Nothing good can come from the constant, mostly baseless attempt by Democrat-Socialist Party leaders who are in collusion with the Deep State. Instead the purpose appears to be an orchestrated plan to bring down our duly elected President, as the entire world watches.  The non-stop efforts from specific Democrats are detrimental to our nation’s success.  Opposition can be an asset when the reason for it  is altruistic, but that is not what our citizens are seeing from specific Democrat leaders today.  They need to put aside partisan issues and work with our President for the good of our nation and people.  We have elections to make any changes in leadership that the majority deems prudent.  


By Nancy Thorner & Al Boese – 

David B. Rivkin, Jr. and Elizabeth Price Foley, two Constitutional Scholars, lay out with clarity, the case against the process being employed by the House Democrats and sanctioned by their Speaker, Nancy Pelosi. Mr. Rivkin and Ms. Foley practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington. Rivlin served at the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations.  Foley is a professor of constitutional law at Florida International University College of Law.

Their lengthy 2100 word article, This Impeachment Subverts the Courts, published in the WSJ on Saturday, October 26, 2019, presents a comprehensive and legally supported case against the procedure Adam Schiff and his committee members have created and followed in their Impeachment quest of Donald Trump.

Aside from the lack of public evidence of a qualifying crime ( Remember, The Constitution permits impeachment only for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” ), there is also a well-defined procedure and sequence based on all previous impeachment attempts; utterly ignored by Schiff and company.

There is also conflict and tension between evidence seeking and the legality of such demands that much will be rejected by the Trump Administration and consequently tested by appeals to higher level courts.

As Rivkin, Jr. and Elizabeth Price relate in their lengthy WSJ article:

“It’s legally irrelevant that a criminal investigation may be politically beneficial to the president. Virtually all exercises of constitutional discretion by a president affect his political interests. It would be absurd to suggest that a president’s pursuit of arms-control agreements, trade deals or climate treaties are impeachable offenses because they benefit the president or his party in an upcoming election.

Using a private party such as Rudy Giuliani to carry out diplomatic missions is neither a crime nor an abuse of power. While the State Department’s mandarins have always lamented intrusions on their bureaucratic turf, numerous U.S. presidents have tapped people to conduct foreign-policy initiatives whose job—whether in the government or private sectors—did not include foreign-policy experience or responsibility. George Washington sent Chief Justice John Jay to negotiate the “Jay Treaty” with Britain. Woodrow Wilson used American journalist Lincoln Steffens and Swedish Communist Karl Kilbom as special envoys to negotiate diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. A close Wilson friend, Edward House, held no office but effectively served as chief U.S. negotiator at the Paris Peace Conference after World War I.

Nor is it illegal or abusive to give a diplomatic assignment to a government official whose formal institutional responsibilities do not include foreign affairs, such as the energy secretary. JFK relied on Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy to negotiate with Moscow during the Cuban missile crisis.

Although the impeachment inquiry has been conducted in secret, what we know suggests it has become a free-ranging exploration of Mr. Trump’s foreign-policy substance and process, with the committees summoning numerous State Department witnesses. Congress could properly undertake such an inquiry using its oversight authority, but by claiming that it is proceeding with an impeachment inquiry, it has forfeited this option.

If the House impeaches Mr. Trump because it disapproves of a lawful exercise of his presidential authority, it will in effect have accused him of maladministration . The Framers rejected that amorphous concept because it would have allowed impeachment for mere political disagreements, rendering the president a ward of Congress and destroying the executive’s status as an independent, coequal branch of government. If the House impeaches on such grounds and the Senate concludes it has jurisdiction to conduct an impeachment trial, it should focus first and foremost not on the details of Mr. Trump’s foreign policy, but on the legal question of whether the conduct alleged is an impeachable offense.

Alexis de Tocqueville observed in 1835: “A decline of public morals in the United States will probably be marked by the abuse of the power of impeachment as a means of crushing political adversaries or ejecting them from office.” What House Democrats are doing is not only unfair to Mr. Trump and a threat to all his successors. It is an attempt to overrule the constitutional process for selecting the president and thus subvert American democracy itself.”

The flawed process

In the end, the process being followed by the Democrats will also be tested by an election and the process may well be rejected at the ballot box. The press is reporting that the public sentiment is turning in favor of an impeachment, but that does not consider the facts of reality.”

In the end, the process being followed by the Democrats will also be tested by an election and the process may well be rejected at the ballot box. The press is reporting that the public sentiment is turning in favor of an impeachment, but that does not consider the facts of reality:

  • Information flow about the witness testimony is secret but selectively leaked to the supportive press to establish a mythical narrative of impeachable offense.
  • The public is always highly suspicious of secrecy.
  • In an actual impeachment proceeding, including a trial in the Senate, the defense finally gets to call their own witnesses and cross examine testimony from that of the prosecution and all will be viewed by the public.
  • The Congressional approval numbers are approaching single digit.
  • Polls about Trump support or favorability are always understated.
  • The press are the most aggressive cheerleaders of the impeachment.
In the latest chapter of the “Impeachment” saga Speaker Pelosi has seemingly capitulated, at least in words, by signaling a floor vote for the inquiry. Is this a head fake, or the recognition the flawed process of Adam Schiff was catching up with him and his committee?  Perhaps fairness for once for Trump is taking hold.