From a great speech by AG Bill Barr to the Federalist Society found here. I highly recommend reading the entire speech. We are lucky as a country to have this man as Attorney General at this time.
"One of the ironies of today is that those who oppose this President constantly accuse this Administration of “shredding” constitutional norms and waging a war on the rule of law. When I ask my friends on the other side, what exactly are you referring to? I get vacuous stares, followed by sputtering about the Travel Ban or some such thing. While the President has certainly thrown out the traditional Beltway playbook, he was upfront about that beforehand, and the people voted for him. What I am talking about today are fundamental constitutional precepts. The fact is that this Administration’s policy initiatives and proposed rules, including the Travel Ban, have transgressed neither constitutional, nor traditional, norms, and have been amply supported by the law and patiently litigated through the Court system to vindication.
Indeed, measures undertaken by this Administration seem a bit tame when compared to some of the unprecedented steps taken by the Obama Administration’s aggressive exercises of Executive power – such as, under its DACA program, refusing to enforce broad swathes of immigration law.
The fact of the matter is that, in waging a scorched earth, no-holds-barred war of “Resistance” against this Administration, it is the Left that is engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law. This highlights a basic disadvantage that conservatives have always had in contesting the political issues of the day. It was adverted to by the old, curmudgeonly Federalist, Fisher Ames, in an essay during the early years of the Republic.
In any age, the so-called progressives treat politics as their religion. Their holy mission is to use the coercive power of the State to remake man and society in their own image, according to an abstract ideal of perfection. Whatever means they use are therefore justified because, by definition, they are a virtuous people pursing a deific end. They are willing to use any means necessary to gain momentary advantage in achieving their end, regardless of collateral consequences and the systemic implications. They never ask whether the actions they take could be justified as a general rule of conduct, equally applicable to all sides.
Conservatives, on the other hand, do not seek an earthly paradise. We are interested in preserving over the long run the proper balance of freedom and order necessary for healthy development of natural civil society and individual human flourishing. This means that we naturally test the propriety and wisdom of action under a “rule of law” standard. The essence of this standard is to ask what the overall impact on society over the long run if the action we are taking, or principle we are applying, in a given circumstance was universalized – that is, would it be good for society over the long haul if this was done in all like circumstances?
For these reasons, conservatives tend to have more scruple over their political tactics and rarely feel that the ends justify the means. And this is as it should be, but there is no getting around the fact that this puts conservatives at a disadvantage when facing progressive holy far, especially when doing so under the weight of a hyper-partisan media."
About Me
▼
Friday, November 22, 2019
Wednesday, November 6, 2019
Blacks, Hispanics, Illegals Dominate Welfare Handouts
From American Renaissance article "Race, Welfare and Media Lies"
TANF
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is what most people think of when they say “welfare.” It pays cash directly to users. The amount varies by state. In 2018 (the most recent data available), there were over 2.27 million recipients, who got nearly $17 billion. Here’s the racial breakdown (Table 10):| Race | % of Recipients | % of Population |
| White | 27.2% | 60.4% |
| Black | 28.9% | 13.4% |
| Hispanic | 37.8% | 18.3% |
| Asian | 1.9% | 5.9% |
| American Indian | 1.5% | 1.3% |
| Multiracial | 2.1% | 2.7% |
Whites are clearly an absolute minority of recipients: just 27.2 percent of the total. There are more blacks and Hispanics on welfare than whites. On a per capita basis, blacks are 4.8 times more likely than whites to get TANF, and Hispanics are 4.7 times more likely. Asians are only two-thirds as likely.
Interestingly, over 85 percent of TANF recipients are single or divorced, and only 13 percent are married. Conservatives have long argued that marriage reduces poverty.
Food Stamps
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is better known as food stamps. In 2017, a staggering 42.1 million people got free food at a cost of $68 billion dollars. The racial breakdown (page 22):
| Race | % of Recipients | % of Population |
| White | 35.8% | 60.4% |
| Black | 25.4% | 13.4% |
| Hispanic | 16.5% | 18.3% |
| Asian | 3.2% | 5.9% |
| American Indian | 1.4% | 1.3% |
| Multiracial | 1.0% | 2.7% |
| Unknown/Didn’t Say | 16.8% | NA |
Again, whites are an absolute minority of food stamp users. The 16.8 percent of “race unknown or didn’t say” is high, but they are unlikely to be white. An even bigger story is that 8.2 percent of recipients are children of non-citizens. A further 8.6 percent are refugees or non-citizens. We import food-stamp users.
Medicaid
Medicaid is health insurance for poor people. An incredible 74 million people were on it in 2017 (up from 46 million in 2001). It is paid for by a combination of state and federal funds, and on average it accounts for a crushing 22 percent of state budgets. In 2018, Medicaid cost over $592 billion, and the racial breakdown for users in 2017 was as follows:
| Race | % of Recipients | % of Population |
| White | 41% | 60.4% |
| Black | 30% | 13.4% |
| Hispanic | 20% | 18.3% |
| Asian | 5% | 5.4% |
| American Indian | 1% | 0.8% |
| Other | 9% | NA |
Again, whites are an absolute minority, though their percentage of recipients for this expensive program is relatively high.
Section 8 and other Public Housing
In 2017, there were nearly 5 million households in the US getting housing assistance through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Most of them got Section 8 vouchers or lived in public housing. Blacks are massively over-represented.
Over 1 million people live in public housing. The racial breakdown is as follows:
| Race | % of Recipients | % of Population |
| White | 30% | 60.4% |
| Black | 42% | 13.4% |
| Hispanic | 23% | 18.3% |
| Asian | 2% | 5.4% |
| American Indian | 1% | 0.8% |
The “stereotype” of blacks in public housing is not false. There are more blacks than people of any other race in the projects, and on a per capita basis, they are 6.7 times more likely to be in them than whites.
Most of the other housing programs involve Section 8 vouchers. A category marked “All Relevant Programs,” includes Section 8 and includes 2.8 million recipients. Here is the race breakdown:
| Race | % of Recipients | % of Population |
| White | 29% | 60.4% |
| Black | 46% | 13.4% |
| Hispanic | 20% | 18.3% |
| Asian | 2% | 5.4% |
| American Indian | 1% | 0.8% |
Blacks are 7.1 times more likely than whites to use this benefit and Hispanics are 2.3 times more likely. Asians are only 77 percent as likely.
There are other welfare programs, but these four are the most important and paint a good picture of who is on the dole. American Renaissance has run articles on this since 1993, all of which show the same racial pattern:
It is clear that blacks and Hispanics take a disproportionate amount of government handouts. Who pays? Nearly half of US households pay no income taxes, but it is hard to get racial breakdowns of who does pay. I have seen several estimates, but none appears to be definitive. Perhaps the most considered estimate is from the blog Alternative Hypothesis, which estimates whites paid more than 75 percent of taxes in 2014.