Donald Trump And The Symbionese Liberation Army

It has been a couple of weeks since the Trump Administration floated the idea of handing out boxes of food to SNAP recipients, rather than food stamps or plastic debit cards, so the story has made its way out of the news cycles. Donald Trump thought that a "Blue Apron" style of delivering food to poor children (most food stamps beneficiaries are children) would be a groovy way to re-vamp that aspect of welfare. Humiliating parents and children who are not as fortunate as Trump and Family is, these days, what being a Republican is all about.

Something that is not addressed by this "food delivery" idea is food allergies. All it takes is one mistake; one accidental or deliberate delivery of peanut butter or tuna to someone with a peanut butter or seafood allergy to kill that person. No kidding. Also not addressed are restricted diets: not everyone can safely eat the same stuff. A person with diabetes is often prescribed a restricted diet. A person with celiac disease experiences autoimmune reactions if he eats anything containing wheat products. A generic box of food cannot address this, but a person who knows what foods are medically safe for his own family can. It appears that the Trump administration just wants to put all poverty stricken families into one category, and any recipient of assistance who does not fit the category is simply out of luck.

Another group demanded, in 1974, that Hearst Publications try the same thing. This group was a terrorist group called the Symbionese Liberation Army. Patty Hearst, the daughter of one of the heirs to Hearst Publications, was kidnapped by the group in February of 1974. A demand made by the group, as a condition of Patty's release, was for the Hearst family to distribute $70.00 worth of food, in boxes, to every needy person in California. The approximate equivalent, as of 2018, is about $420.00 per person or family. Hearst went ahead and started distributing food at one location, hoping to get his daughter back. What ensued was chaos, not unlike Donald Trump and his charitable act of throwing paper towels at people in Puerto Rico, after Hurricane Maria. Such actions facilitate the risks of hurting people, and there is no guarantee that everyone who needs food or paper towels will even benefit. Since we all know that this type of charity did not work well for a group of domestic terrorists, why would the president thing it is a good idea?

Facebook Strikes Again

A Flint, Michigan police officer by the name of Rob Garceau was recently fired because of something he posted on Facebook. The statement he made relates to the investigation of two homicides, and what he wrote is, "Keep purging society of the maggots. 2 less welfare, food stamp people. Keep it up."

Garceau's attorney is running a media campaign against the police department in Flint because he is convinced that Garceau has the right, via the First Amendment, to post such statements as long as he is not on duty. There are several problems with that, beginning with the fact that Garceau is a cop, and cops are trusted to enforce the law. Murder is against the law, yet the police department in Flint had an officer whose public statements technically encourage murder. He may not have meant it literally, but the words still set a terrible example: Garceau essentially told anyone who happens to read his post that murder is behaviorally acceptable. Next, it appears, from Garceau's Facebook post that he believes that anyone who receives public assistance or charity should not have the same protections from law enforcement as the rest of the population. Is a child who qualifies for reduced lunches at school in more danger when Garceau is on duty? Most food stamp recipients are, after all, children. If policemen really think that it is sufficient to allow anyone who might be receiving government assistance to become victims of crime, how can they possibly discourage and fight crime? There is also the reality that a police officer, unless clairvoyant, is not likely to have the ability to determine who is on welfare and who isn't, while on duty. Are we to assume that anyone who the cops think is needy enough for charity will not merit protection from law enforcement? So much for public trust! I do not blame the police department one bit for giving Garceau his walking papers.

Something else Garceau's attorney should think about is the murder case, itself. If the case is still under investigation, chances are quite strong that the prosecutor does not need public comments made about it by a police officer. Not only is there an outside chance of influencing or intimidating witnesses, thereby perverting justice; it shows an officer who does not work well with the court system. I think getting Garceau off the force was a good idea.

Private Message Public Notice

I am back in Hood River, Oregon and watching both the leaves and the rain fall. Looking forward to Black Friday...yeah, buddy! Anyone else going to buy an important item that day?

The above quote was intercepted from some social media of someone who is homeless by choice and refuses to work or find permanent housing in order to better her situation. Instead, she sponges off of anyone she can, and spends her ninety-some odd dollars a month in food stamps on fast food. It is usually gone within a couple of days. She also thinks she should buy electronic equipment, such as computers, before she secures her own housing. Housing opportunities have, indeed, presented themselves to her over the last couple of years, yet she refuses. The rest of us deal with the pros and cons of various business and personal relationships with others, such as landlord/tenant; while this person will not do that. She opts, instead, to use everyone in her acquaintance. If a smelly, overweight, homeless female hitchhiker pontificates to you about morals, religion, and matters spiritual while using truly vulgar language and entertaining a sense of entitlement that would make a two year old proud, you may have met this person! She knows who she is........and here is my "cryptic" message to her! Here goes:

The only thing you need to buy on Black Friday, or any day, is your own food with your own government assistance; that is, until they find out you are not really looking for a job. And your own housing. You see, lots of shelters probably prioritize people who do not have incomes ahead of people who do. Your dishonestly obtained disability counts as an income, and you do not care for children, so you are LAST! Everywhere you go. Stop taking stuff to which you are not entitled, and maybe that will change.

The assistance you get from Kansas is more than enough to feed one person, if the one person happens to live somewhere with a stove. You have enough money to buy staples, such as beans and rice. You can also buy Mason jars, and preserve your own food. You are also allowed, in some states, to buy seeds with your assistance dollars and grow some of your food. That would involve a level of responsibility which would enable a landlord/tenant relationship, though. When Kansas extended government sponsored charity to you, caseworkers expected you to get a job and find permanent housing. And it IS charity, in your case......you've wolfed down more food than one person, even a Sumo wrestler, would ever claim and you've done it much longer than any state allows. Your habit of hopping from state to state, grabbing resources from other states when the state from which you currently sponge decides to put you on a diet and a job-hunting program, really needs more public attention. Not all homeless people do this, but you are a prime example of why some members of the general public hate the homeless and will not help them.

How do you sleep at night, knowing that every time you sleep on a bad for which your own finances did not pay, a child or an honestly desperate person is sleeping outside? Why do you take food, money, and resources from children, anyway?

Note: Anyone who knows what this post is about should be warned about one thing prior to picking this person up while she hitchhikes. While this did not happen to me, I was naïve enough to open my home to her, and it was my distinct impression that she was "shopping" (there's that Black Friday reference again!) for a place to either fake or stage an injury in order to file a lawsuit and grab some quick cash. When I didn't want to be vulnerable to this and play the game with her, she moved on to richer and less protected individuals. Also, money not only mysteriously disappeared from my wallet, but from my daughter's wallet, while this woman stayed in my home.

 

Private Message

I have some very bad news for a certain welfare recipient. It was in the paper this morning! It seems you may no longer be free to collect certain benefits within a certain, Midwestern state and continue to move from place to place without employment. An honest effort to secure gainful employment will very likely be required in the near future, as the only reason it was not required was a waiver which was granted to the state. Quite a few of us know that the real reason you never settle down is an attempt to avoid having your welfare benefits stopped when you refuse to go to work anywhere. It's easier to hitchhike to a different state, and try to collect benefits there, isn't it? Kansas isn't gonna let you do it anymore. Enjoy job hunting!

Do All Republicans Cry?

"i personally think your article is worthless fecal matter. maybe you should fact check obamas terrible record and how he will bankrupt this country completely. republicans just dont want to give the money they make away to worthless unemployed welfare recipients.maybe you should move to a communist country if you really believe the liberal garbage you just spewed!"

This comment was sent to me, not only on this blog, but in a couple of different places on the internet. Apparently, we have a sore loser on our hands. Obama's record does not bother me. Obama reformed healthcare and dealt with Bin Laden. Obama also didn't let the auto industry disappear, and has refused to sell out to the Koch Brothers. He also stopped campaigning after Hurricane Sandy and did his job, while Romney collected goods that the Red Cross told him they could not transport or use, and threw them away after posing beside them for the camaras. By the way, the people who were affected by Hurricane Sandy are some of the people who will benefit from the money you don't want to give. They are from all walks of life, not just stereotypical "welfare recipients".

Programs for relief for those living in poverty do not take more than five to six percent of taxes paid by everyone, and if you are bellyaching about "food stamps" in particular, that's between three and four percent. Most of the beneficiaries of those programs are children, and I would certainly never vote for a lawmaker who wanted children to quit school and go to work. So the single digit percent you do not want to pay is probably going to stay in place. By and large, the rest of those "unemployed welfare recipients" are pretty much employed, since there are time limits to what they can receive in benefits. As long as they can work, they are required to work. If it's healthcare you are running your sillyassed yap about to me, I think everyone is entitled to medical care, whether they can afford insurance or not. Once again, most of the people whose insurance is bought with your tax dollars and mine are children, so shut up! And when adults become ill and cannot work, they shouldn't be bankrupted or turned away by doctors and hospitals. Other than that, schools, libraries, and city infrastructures are also things that are paid for by Republicans and Democrats alike, and we should be budgeting MORE money for schools, not LESS.

As for "giving away the money you make", my self righteous complainer, there was once a day in my past, when I was at work, assisting my employer in his quest to make money, when the hospital emergency room telephoned me to let me know that my infant son had been taken there by ambulance with a fever of one hundred and six. My employer complained that without me, he could not make as much money, and threatened me with disciplinary action if I left early to care for my son. The truth here is, the money made by that company was made, not only by the company owners, but by all the employees, as well. Thereby, the money made was not only the company's, but mine, as well. My employer attempted to step on me, but I took care of my family anyway. Since he was unable to replace me at the drop of a hat, he was stuck with a mom who loves her children on his payroll. You see, there are too many people in this country, and on this planet, for things to run in as uncomplicated of a fashion as you seem to think they should run. The person who fought in the wars in which your country engaged, but is unemployed now, still made money along with you. The person with a disability is also not "worthless", as you stated. As long as you travel on OUR roads to reach your place of employment and make YOUR money, and as long as you send your children to OUR schools, and use the services of OUR police force, and a myriad of other commonly shared ammenities, you cannot really claim that you are "giving the money you make away". Obama is not bankrupting this country....businesses like Walmart are, if you really think that welfare is the biggest problem. Many of Walmart's employees are not paid a wage that enables them to live without using some of those services you decry. Yet you do want someone to ring up your purchases promptly when you shop at Walmart, don't you? Why is your money more special than that person's money? Why is your time at work more special than that person's time at work?

The "fecal matter" here was written by you......with little to no punctuation and absolutely no fact checks. And you are pathetic enough to withhold your signature or your name. I do not have to move to a Communist country. I am American, and I get to stay here. Obama won the election, you are just going to have to get used to it.