Trump signs order calling for work requirements in welfare programs

It doesn’t take a genius to see that paying people NOT to work is not a strategy for success.  This action by President Trump is just one step down a long road toward getting government out of the welfare business, where it has no business being in the first place.

WINNING!

---

---

BY BRETT SAMUELS – 04/10/18 06:20 PM EDT

President Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order calling for federal agencies to establish or strengthen existing work requirements for certain individuals who benefit from federal welfare programs.

The White House issued a memo that argued those who rely on welfare would have an easier time achieving economic mobility through strengthened work requirements where they already exist, and the creation of new ones where applicable.

“The Federal Government should do everything within its authority to empower individuals by providing opportunities for work, including by investing in Federal programs that are effective at moving people into the workforce and out of poverty,” the executive order states.

The new requirements would apply to those who are able to work, according to the memo.

The order does not detail which specific programs will be subject to such requirements.

Instead, Trump’s executive order calls on the heads of the departments of Treasury, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation and Education to review public assistance programs within their agencies.

Those department heads are expected to submit a report within 90 days with a list of recommended changes to achieve Trump’s goals, according to the executive order.

The order also says the federal government will streamline services, review existing services and consolidate or eliminate programs that are ineffective or overlap in services.

The Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families embraced the executive order and said it will allow the agency to take “aggressive action” toward enforcing work requirements.

“Strengthening work requirements for welfare recipients is a critical element of moving welfare recipients from dependency to self-sufficiency,” Steven Wagner, the acting assistant secretary for the organization, said in a statement.

Some GOP lawmakers have advocated for stronger work requirements to eliminate a perceived dependence on welfare.

The Trump administration last month approved Arkansas’s request to impose work requirements on certain Medicaid beneficiaries.

Link to article:  http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/382557-trump-signs-order-calling-for-work-requirements-in-welfare-programs#.Ws4kf35EaMA.twitter

You Don’t Appreciate What You Don’t Work For

“The value of liberty was thus enhanced in our estimation by the difficulty of its attainment, and the worth of characters appreciated by the trial of adversity.” –George Washington, letter to the people of South Carolina, 1790

When you work for something, you tend to appreciate it a lot more. Thus the reason we are losing and abusing our freedom now. We are two generations removed from the last generation of Americans that nearly across the board were impacted personally in some way by the war they had to fight for survival. That was the WWII generation. Since then, the MILITARY has gone to war several times, but the American people have not. That is both a blessing and a curse, for while those at home have been insulated from the horrors of war, they also don’t fully appreciate what it has done on their behalf.

History tends to be cyclical. If you believe the Tytler Cycle, which historically has been pretty accurate, we are straddling ‘Apathy’ and ‘Dependence’ on our way to ‘Bondage.’ Unless we break the cycle we are in, our nation will be forced once again to go through the pain of bondage to force us to redevelop the faith and courage necessary to gain our liberty again.
–

---

His Majesty Uh-Bama says “Let them eat pizza!” Rue Paul gets makeover before party.

The blatant hypocrisy of the new American aristocracy is on full display, but it isn’t getting any attention because of the orgasmic love affair between the mainstream media and the Rock Star Obamas. Notice the NBC puff piece on BO’s decision to pick St. Louis pizza instead of Chicago pizza for his latest tax payer funded White House party. So much for Uh-Bama’s promise to be a responsible steward of tax payer money. Once again, the liberal double standard rears its ugly head. If G.W. Bush so much as farted, the left and the mainstream media immediately labeled him an eco-terrorist. When Bill Clinton shut down the entire west coast air traffic system by delaying his takeoff so he could get a $200 haircut aboard Air Force 1 from some expensive LA hair stylist, did ANYONE on the left or the mainstream media criticize the millions of dollars wasted because of his arrogance? No. Is anyone on the left or in the mainstream media now talking about the waste, arrogance, and attitude of royalty displayed by the Obama’s in their waste of taxpayer money on their constant partying, makeup artists, expensive clothes (OK for Michelle at taxpayer expense, but not for Sarah Palin paid for by DONATIONS) and jet-setting around the world? Crickets. On to the next item of hypocrisy. Remember BO’s pandering to the environmental left and his push to implement carbon taxes on all fossil fuels? Cap and Trade? Carbon Credits? Carbon Foot Prints? Has anyone on the left or in the mainstream media said a word about how many tons of plant food (carbon dioxide green house gasses for you fools who think that man-made global warming is real) were put into the atmosphere for Obama’s benefit just to fly in a pizza chef AT TAX PAYER EXPENSE from St. Louis? Simon and Garfunkel singing “The Sound of Silence.” For crying out loud, he even lied about the dog he promised his kids. He said it had to be a dog from the Humane Society or similar facility, and it had to be a “mutt” like he was. Turns out to be a water dog given as a gift by the Kennedy’s. Does anyone besides me see the irony in that? I think the Kennedy’s water dog was named Mary-Jo.

Chicago deep dish diss?

Posted: Friday, April 10, 2009 1:30 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: Barack Obama

From NBC’s Danielle Weisberg
According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and The Atlantic, President Obama was supposed to fly in a pizza chef to prepare lunch for his guests at the White House today. An ode to the trademark deep-dish pizza of his hometown Chicago?

Not quite.

The chef being flown in is Ryan Mangialardo, partner in St. Louis’s Pi restaurant. Obama declared Mangialardo’s pizza “the best pizza I’ve ever eaten” on the campaign trail last October.

While the president has displayed his Chicago loyalty — proudly sporting his White Sox baseball hat, rooting for Da Bears, cheering for the Bulls — some in the Windy City might be surprised about his pizza preference.

---

‘Glamorous’ Michelle Obama: Full-time Makeup Artist in White House

By Cathryn Friar

The transformation of Michelle Obama from angry and bitter candidate’s wife to fashionista icon of the world has been really remarkable to witness.

‘Glamour First’ seems to be the motto for the Obama White House and for First Lady Michelle Obama.

When looking at the above before and after pics, is there any doubt that Michelle Obama has had a heck of a lot of work done to soften and stylize her appearance since we first became aware of her two years ago? ‘The camera doesn’t lie’ as they say. We can see from the reshaping of her seriously wicked eyebrows, the adding of diva false eyelashes, and a trendy designer wardrobe that she looks completely different these days.

Now we’re told that Michelle Obama is the nation’s first First Lady to add a full-time makeup artist to her traveling entourage, according to the stylists who have worked with presidential wives over the past 16 years.

Her new makeup artist is Ingrid Grimes-Miles and she is behind the first of Michelle Obama’s make up reinventions – those scary eyebrows. It seems after the First Lady was criticized for looking angry, her high-arched eyebrows were reshaped to give her a ‘friendlier’ appearance. The overall make up goal for Michelle Obama? A more natural and polished look.

Make up, in Michelle Obama’s case, is a very good thing.

Seriously, we all want our First Family to have all they need to represent us well home and abroad. But Michelle Obama needs to prove she is more then someone who is simply a fashion icon. Many of us still view her as having a very complicated and difficult personality that includes being unpatriotic, quite angry with racist overtones, and definately bitter – all qualities that are completely unacceptable in a First Lady. Do they have reinventing stylists for this as well? Maybe.

---

Michelle Obama is first presidential wife to have full-time make-up artist on tour

Michelle Obama has become the first presidential wife to travel with a full-time make-up artist on tour as she wowed crowds in Europe recently.
By Our Foreign Staff
Last Updated: 6:12PM BST 13 Apr 2009

Hillary Clinton drew criticism for her padded Alice bands and ever-changing hairstyles, and Laura Bush’s sartorial choices were dismissed as dull and matronly. But while the US president’s words topped political agendas on his recent European tour, his wife’s elegant look dominated headlines.

As she faced millions of flashing cameras, the first lady came armed with false eyelashes, a pearl iridescent highlighter to accent the countours of her cheekbones, and subtle pink lipstick.

It has now emerged that the Mrs Obama’s polished glamour is thanks, in part, to Ingrid Grimes-Miles, a 49-year-old make-up artist she met in Chicago six years ago.

“No other first ladies have consistently travelled with a makeup artist,” Bernard Portelli, Hillary Clinton’s former hairdresser, told the New York Post .

As Americans tighten their belts in the midst of the financial crisis, the Obamas have gone to great lengths to adopt a relatively frugal approach to fashion. The first lady is a famous fan of US high street chain J. Crew, which she mixes with designer pieces.

Aware of the sensitivity about public spending during the recession – and of previous criticism of expensive political haircuts – the first couple paid for the expenses of having a make-up artist in their entourage out of their own pocket, according to a spokeswoman for Mrs Obama.

Even in difficult financial times, it might have been a wise investment.

Mrs Obama drew criticism on the campaign trail for looking “angry” following fiery comments that were interpreted as unpatriotic. Some critics even warned that her perceived anger would cost her husband the election.

But a few deft flicks of the tweezers later, Mrs Obama’s eyebrows had been trained into a gentler arc, giving her a friendlier appearance – a move style watchers have attributed to Mrs Grimes-Miles.

---

PROMISES, PROMISES: Is Obama dog a rescue or not?

By SHARON THEIMER – 3 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Is Bo a rescued dog or not? Did President Obama keep or break a campaign promise in picking the purebred as the family’s new pet?

The twists and turns of the Portuguese water dog’s route to the White House make for the kind of intrigue that political junkies and the highly opinionated dog world delight in.

Barack Obama and his wife Michelle said during the presidential campaign that they had promised their two girls a dog after the election.

The Obamas repeatedly said they wanted it to be a rescued dog such as one from a shelter. Their search was complicated by daughter Malia’s allergies, which would rule out many of the “mutts” the president has said he would prefer.

Enter Bo, a 6-month-old puppy given up by his first owner and matched with the Obamas through his breeders. Because he was given up by his first owner as a poor fit and is now with his second owners, the Obamas, but never spent time in a shelter or with a rescue group, Bo is a “quasi-rescue dog,” says Wayne Pacelle, chief executive of The Humane Society of the United States.

Here’s where the intrigue comes in:

_ Bo’s breeders happen to have bred Sen. Edward Kennedy’s Portuguese water dogs. The Massachusetts Democrat, an Obama friend and political ally, also acquired a pup from Bo’s litter. Bo’s breeders are fans of Obama and named Bo’s litter the Hope and Change litter.

_ Bo’s first owner lives in Washington.

_ Bo was returned to the breeder in early March, fitting the spring timeline the Obamas had given for their dog adoption.

_ Kennedy and his wife Victoria helped line Bo up with the Obamas. Before moving into the White House, the pup spent nearly a month with the Kennedys’ dog trainer in Virginia.

In fact, Bo is a gift to the Obamas’ daughters, Malia and Sasha, from the Kennedys, said Katie McCormick Lelyveld, a spokeswoman for Michelle Obama. The puppy officially arrives Tuesday.

“They were starting their search with shelter dogs, but when the Kennedys learned of this dog and offered it as a gift to the girls, they met the dog, it was a perfect fit for their lifestyle and for Malia’s health concerns,” she said, adding that the Obamas are making a donation to the Washington Humane Society. “Because this gift came before their pound search sort of was completed, they made a gift to some of the places they were looking.”

Still, conspiracy buffs might speculate that Bo was meant for the Obamas all along. Was his adoption engineered to look like a rescue — or at least blur the line to head off criticism that the Obamas had picked a purebred from a breeder?

The Humane Society’s Pacelle acknowledged that the Obamas never flat-out promised to get a dog from a pound or rescue group. And the society has kind words for Obama on its Web site: “Thanks, Mr. President, for giving a second-chance dog a forever home,” it says.

“He’s in a gray area,” Pacelle said of Bo. “But I will say that many animal advocates are disappointed that he (Obama) didn’t go to a shelter or breed rescue group, partly because he set that expectation and because so many activists are focused on trying to reduce the number of animals euthanized at shelters, and there’s no better person to make the case to the American public that you can get a great dog from a shelter than the president.”

The group later removed its congratulatory message and replaced it with: “First Dog Unveiled. Concerns about impact on shelters, demand for breed as Bo makes his debut.”

Bo could be considered rescued, since he was removed from a situation that wasn’t working, said Cesar Millan, host of the National Geographic Channel’s “The Dog Whisperer” and co-founder with his wife of a nonprofit foundation to help abused dogs.

To help Bo settle in, the Obamas should walk him a lot in the early days to bond with him, drain his energy and make him hungry for his meals, Millan said. That will give the dog a routine and help him see that the family is the source of his food, and he has to work for it, he said.

“The dog doesn’t know he just moved in with the president of the United States. The dog is going to say, `Who fulfilled my needs from day one, so who should I trust from day one?'” Millan said.

Bo’s breeder, Martha Stern of Boyd, Texas, said she doesn’t consider Bo a rescued dog. Owners of dogs from the kennel she and her husband run must sign contracts requiring them to return the dogs to the Sterns if they do not work out, she said. Bo went from his first home, in Washington, to the Kennedys’ trainer in Virginia, and now to the White House, she said.

Portuguese water dogs aren’t for everyone, Stern said. Known as PWDs, they tend to be high-energy “in-your-face” dogs that need a lot of attention, and their curly coats require a lot of maintenance, she said.

Stern said the first family did a lot of research and already knew the breed’s pros and cons, and that Victoria Kennedy was closely involved. Bo seemed like a good fit because the Obamas are an active family and have the resources to give him the training and other things he needs, Stern said.

“I wouldn’t say he’s excessively high in energy,” she said, but still a “little bit more than middle-of-the-road.”

“On a scale of five, he’s probably about three,” Stern said.

The dog’s non-shedding coat also makes him a good choice, given Malia Obama’s allergies.

Stern worries that puppy mills will try to capitalize on the Obamas’ dog choice and start churning out PWDs for an eager public. It’s the responsibility of good Portuguese water dog breeders to try to prevent that, she said.

As for Bo, he has already been neutered, Mrs. Obama’s spokeswoman said.

___

Portuguese Water Dog Club of America: http://www.pwdca.org/

The Humane Society of the United States: http://www.hsus.org/

---

‘America’s Smartest Woman’ Is Making Us Look Stupid

Hillary only stuck with Bill because it kept her close to the seat of power, and by not throwing Bill to the wolves she held power over him.  She is a power hungry enabler just like her new boss.  She’ll throw him under the bus if given the opportunity.  In the meantime, she just runs around the world making America look like fools.  That may actually be true if you look at who we have elected as our representatives and to the highest office in the land.  The liberal plan for public education has finally come to fruition.

‘America’s Smartest Woman’ Is Making Us Look Stupid

by A.W.R. Hawkins (more by this author)

Posted 04/01/2009 ET

Hillary Clinton is best remembered for blaming the accusations against her husband on a “vast right wing conspiracy” (until he was forced to admit that he was giving a different dog a bone) and blaming her 2008 Democrat primary losses on the anti-female sentiment in certain parts of our country. (No, not anti-female.  Just anti-beyotch.) But who is she going to blame for her disastrous debut as secretary of state?

Can we blame the president? No; his foreign policy experience is even less than hers. And, yes: her entire foreign policy experience was kissing the late Yasser Arafat’s wife on the lips and embarrassing her hubby on a China trip by making a plea for women’s rights to a group assembled by the Chicoms to listen politely to her. But I digress.

Now Hillary, long considered “America’s smartest woman” by people like Elton John and James Carville, is taking her blame game and her conditional loyalty to the world as our Secretary of State.

Her debut was a meeting with the Russian foreign minister, to whom she presented what was supposed to be a “reset” button, making light of Obama’s desire to make nice with the bad guys. The button, though, wasn’t labeled “reset.” Instead, due to the fine work by her staff, it had the Russian word for “overload” (like an electronic circuit) painted on it. So while it’s obvious that Hillary ain’t the Great Communicator, it gets worse.

Her recent trips to China and Mexico prove this point.

En route to China for her February 20-22 visit with Chinese leaders, Hillary wasted no time in criticizing others for problems the U.S. is facing with North Korea. She polished up the old refrain “it’s Bush’s fault” by intimating that North Korea has nukes because of the failed policies of former president George W. Bush.

Hillary believes Bush failed to keep North Korea within the parameters of an agreement they signed while Hillary’s husband was president. But gatewaypundit.com has duly noted that the “North Korean regime [has] violated the agreed framework almost from the time it was signed during the Clinton years.”

And what retribution did they face for this violation during the Clinton years? None.

Once Hillary landed in China, she went from blaming Bush to turning her back on core Democrat constituencies like Amnesty International and pro-Tibetan support groups, both of which are outraged over China’s violations of human rights. Instead of calling Chinese leaders out on their mistreatment of whole classes of humanity, Hillary said, “[E]fforts to press China on issues like Taiwan, Tibet and human rights ‘can’t interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis.’”

Hillary tried to clarify her reasoning by adding that there’s no use talking human rights with the Chinese because, “We pretty much know what they’re going to say.”

Since when is knowing what someone is “going to say” a valid reason for not doing what ought to be done?

In the German publication Spiegel, Günter Nooke, of the Christian Democratic Union Party, described the methods of America’s smartest woman as “very questionable.” He explained that the reason she really didn’t want to do anything to offend Chinese leaders was because her trip was part of a larger effort to seek “out fresh Chinese loans for the deeply-indebted American government.”

To put it succinctly, Hillary’s visit with Chinese leaders was conducted from a position of weakness. And such a mindset barred our inept secretary of state from standing up for Tibetans, the Taiwanese, or any other people group that China regularly assaults and threatens, for fear of financial loss.

Slate’s Annie Applebaum, a left leaning journalist, put it this way: “I…care quite a lot about what the new administration is going to do about human rights on the ground, and, to date, both Clinton and Obama have been utterly silent on that score.”

When Hillary traveled to Mexico last week, she further epitomized the sad state of our current administration by demonstrating that their refusal to call China on the carpet for obvious wrongs China had committed would not keep them from blaming America for wrongs that America had not committed.

Our smartest-woman-turned secretary of state told Mexico’s President Calderon that America had “a co-responsibility” for the violence currently overtaking Mexico: “Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade. Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the death of police officers, soldiers and civilians.” (It doesn’t matter that we KNOW  that the weapons that the liberals are speaking about were given to the MEXICAN GOVERNMENT by our government and then stolen from the Mexican government by drug cartels, or given to the drug cartels by sympathizers/moles within the military.  This is just a way to build uninformed sympathy for an illegitimate gun ban in this country.)

Isn’t anyone responsible for their own actions anymore? And wouldn’t it be more accurate to point out that Mexico’s violence is the result of the fact that they’re an anti-capitalist third world country with a population largely comprised of laborers whose own government robs them of the chance to better themselves?

Yet it just keeps getting worse. From Monterrey, Mexico, America’s smartest woman told Calderon: “[The] partnership that you have created…between the public and the private sector is a model that we and others will look towards.” I guess this means we, in America, would be better off by living like citizens of the third world instead of citizens of an industrialized one?

I fear that America’s smartest woman has yet to understand that she’s not just a first lady anymore: her words mean something now that she’s become secretary of state. And not only is she setting us up to pay financial reparations by taking “co-responsibility” for the crimes of another nation, she’s actually making America look internationally impotent by lacking the backbone to demand that the Chinese uphold human rights or the clarity of thought needed to see that Mexico’s political structure eliminates any possibility for paupers to go from rags to riches.

Hillary’s trips to China and Mexico, and the words she used while in each country, confirm that we’ve no longer an administration that’s proud of this country, its values, or its accomplishments. Gone for now are the days when America deals from a position of strength.

HUMAN EVENTS columnist A.W.R. Hawkins has been published on topics including the U.S. Navy, Civil War battles, Vietnam War ideology, the Reagan Presidency, and the Rebirth of Conservatism, 1968-1988. More of his articles can be found at www.awrhawkins.com.

HR 1388 GIVE Act Aimed at “Re-Educating” and Indoctrinating Your Children

I started reading (yes, actually reading) the WHOLE bill last night. I’ve gotten about half way through it so far, and what I’ve seen so far SCARES THE LIVING CRAP OUT OF ME!

Here are some of things that scare me about what I’ve read so far:

• “Service Learning”: Thinly veiled wording for indoctrination. This follows the model of Soviet Russia with their “re-education camps.” Though the original language of this bill called the re-education/indoctrination centers “camps,” they have since changed the names to “campuses.”
• “Service Corps”: The more I read, the more these look like the basis for the mobs/militias that Obama mentioned in his campaign, but quickly covered up. He said he would form a security force funded as well as the military. Every dictator and despot ruler has had the same thing: a paramilitary force to “persuade” citizens to bend to the will of the despot.
• Backdoor attack on home schooling: The more I read, the more it becomes apparent that Obama intends to make attendance in public, government run schools mandatory. In recent years there have been increasing attacks on those who wish to home school their children in order to teach more conservative values to them. The communists/socialists have known for a long time that if you control the children, you will eventually bypass the parents and control the society.
• Prohibition on any display or exercise of religion: Sect 125 (a)(7) reads thusly…
  

  ‘(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:
  (7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.

The only way they’ll take my kids to these camps is over my cold, dead body.

I’m uncovering more and more bad stuff in this bill. Please read as much of this, and every other bill, as you have the opportunity to read. Expose what our corrupt politicians are trying to keep in the dark.

Read HR1388 here:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1388/text

________________________________________________________________

Special Olympics Remark Not Biggest Problem Disabled Have w/Obama

13.2% Unemployment Rate Shows Bowling Is Not Pres. Obama’s Biggest Problem With Disabled Americans

By Roy Beck, Tuesday, March 24, 2009, 10:54 AM

Pres. Obama supposedly got into hot water with disabled Americans last week when he made a joke about his bowling skills and Special Olympics to Jay Leno. But his true insult to the handicapped was his insistence last week on keeping 7 million jobs (currently held by illegal aliens) out of reach. The first-ever official unemployment rate report on the disabled tells the story (and my handicapped wife has a story, too) . . .

American adults with physical handicaps are among the worst victims of the federal government’s insistence on importing 138,000 new foreign workers each month — and of Pres. Obama’s and congressional leadership’s continued pressure for an amnesty to allow an estimated 7 million illegal aliens to permanently keep U.S. jobs.

Official unemployment for disabled Americans stands at 13.2%.

The government reported that was 59% higher than the official unemployment rate for non-disabled Americans for the same period.

You can be sure that the 13.2% gravely underestimates the lack of employment opportunities for the handicapped because that only counts the handicapped who are actively looking for a job and can’t find one. The majority of all Americans who don’t have a job are not counted in the unemployment figures because they have left the labor force entirely, either willingly or because of discouragement. You can imagine how much more quickly a person with disabilities loses the will and energy to continue futilely seeking a job and, thus, stops being counted as unemployed.

When the New York Times or the head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops or any of dozens of nationally prominent leaders cry out for amnesty, they are stating their preference for hiring illegal foreign workers over disabled Americans.

A PERSONAL DISABILITY STORY

My wife Shirley has been handicapped since she had an onset of multiple sclerosis in 1974.

Shirley is fortunate to have had a good education (University of Missouri) and profession (physical therapy). As the disease took away her ability to walk and many other things, she put in an elevator and created a clinic in our home and downsized most of her patients (treating mainly babies and children). Through use of ingenuity, mechanical devices, incredible will and often the assistance of patients’ family, she continues to run a bustling pediatric therapy practice.

But even physical therapists aren’t immune from being undermined by immigration policies. Nearly every year, various Members of Congress fight to import larger quantities of foreign physical therapists rather than support expansion of U.S. PT schools to train the long backlogs of American students who are desperate to learn the profession.

My main point, however, is not about Shirley, but about her patients.

Anybody can have a child born with a disability.

When you look into the faces of the parents of Shirley’s patients — when you see the arduous devotion required of them to help their children achieve levels of self-sufficiency and personal fulfillment — you know that one of the most important goals for the end of the long effort into adulthood needs to be . . .

. . . a job.

A certain percentage of these disabled members of our national community will be fortunate like Shirley and be able to compete at a professional level. But a disproportionate number of them will need more routine jobs. Many of those jobs are disproportionately held by foreign workers — especially illegal aliens at clerk stations, in the parking garage booths, in myriad tasks that do not require much mobility.

Last week, Pres. Obama promised full inclusiveness for disabled Americans and also promised that he will work diligently this very year to keep an estimated 7 million U.S. jobs filled with illegal foreign workers. On balance, this was not good news in the pediatric physical therapy units across America.

FOREIGN LABOR ESPECIALLY DISADVANTAGES THE DISABLED

All other things being equal, do you suppose an employer is going to prefer a disabled American or a strong-bodied, young foreign worker?

It is difficult enough to first of all find jobs in which a disability does not have to prevent the worker from performing up to standard. Secondly, it is difficult for the disabled to get past many employers’ natural qualms about hiring them.

But the federal government’s immigration policies may be the greatest handicap of all that disabled Americans must surmount.

With the federal government opening massive floodgates of foreign workers since 1990, it is no surprise that the employment dreams entailed in the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 have been largely unconsummated. Pres. George H.W. Bush signed that act but also signed another bill that drastically increased the flow of foreign labor to compete with the disabled Americans trying to become fully productive members of society.

Since then, Presidents Clinton, George W. Bush and now Obama have done everything possible with immigration policies to keep disabled Americans out of the job market by pushing foreign workers in front of them in line.

OBAMA’S DISCONNECTED COMPASSIONS

Before going on Leno’s show, Pres. Obama probably was sincere in an exchange with a handicapped American man, according to the Washington Post:

During a town hall forum in Los Angeles earlier in the day, a disabled man told Obama ‘about the true renaissance that’s happening’ among people with physical disabilities, asking the president how “your disability agenda will release this emerging potential that’s currently wasted and untapped?’

‘Well, you are exactly right that we need everybody,’ Obama responded. ‘And every program that we have has to be thinking on the front end how do we make sure that it is inclusive and building into it our ability to draw on the capacities of persons with disabilities.’

Mr. Obama, when you say “every program,” you obviously do not include your immigration programs. Are your immigration programs making sure that the nation does its best to use the talents of the disabled members of our national community?

No.

And you are wrong to say that “we need everybody.” Because of your predecessors’ — and now your — immigration policies, the employers of America most definitely do NOT need our handicapped fellow citizens. The official unemployment rate makes that clear.

As usual, Pres. Obama shows no sign of understanding that foreign workers compete for jobs with Americans. He seems to regard immigration as some form of human rights, civil rights or global humanitarianism program that has no impact on the labor market.

He may be sincere in that ignorance, but that sincere ignorance is devastating to the American households who are without a job because of our immigration programs.

As a result, Mr. Obama continues to appear willing to perpetuate immigration policies that are profoundly anti-humanitarian, anti-justice and anti-mercy. He did not create them. But he is now the Change President who refuses to change these destructive policies.

SHIRLEY BEAT THE PRESIDENT’S CAMPAIGN BOWLING

With all the photos and news stories about the President’s bowling prowess the last few days, our family decided to celebrate Shirley’s birthday last night with several hours at the bowling alley.

With family holding her up, Shirley double-pumped all her own throws at the foul line. Her immediate goal was to beat Mr. Obama’s celebrated outing before the Pennsylvania Primary last year when he quit after bowling a 37 through seven frames (a pace for a 53 game). Shirley got close with a 52 the first game, fell short the second and then ended with a triumphant 87.

That was still short of the 129 that the President says he recently achieved at the White House lanes, but I’m sure Shirley would be happy to try a direct competition at the White House and to compete without a scoring handicap — as long as Mr. Obama would remove the immigration handicap from the job market for disabled Americans.