1 VoteI have always known that conservatives were spreading flat-out lies about Food Stamps but I have never had the time to do the research and write an article about these falsehoods. Today I found this article by Dave Johnson and checked his facts but I knew he was correct. Interesting and truthful read! mab Conservatives have widely circulated stories about people using food stamps to buy cigarettes and alcohol. The Blaze trumpets stories like, “THIS 65-YEAR-OLD CLERK WAS FIRED FOR REFUSING TO SELL CIGARETTES TO A FOOD STAMP CUSTOMER” and outlets like Fox echo it. These kinds of stories are everywhere in the right-wing echo chamber.Here are the facts: According to USDA, households may use food stamps to buy foods, such as breads and cereals; fruits and vegetables; meats, fish and poultry; and dairy products. Also they can buy seeds and plants which produce food to eat. (In some areas, restaurants can be authorized to accept SNAP benefits from qualified homeless, elderly, or disabled people in exchange for low-cost meals.)Households may not use food stamps to buy beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco; pet foods; soaps, paper products; household supplies; vitamins and medicines; food that will be eaten in the store; hot foods.
My Wag: Scalia would have made a great dictator. He knows how everyone should behave and he knows how to F-with those who don’t.
In a speech last week titled “Mullahs of the West: Judges as Moral Arbiters,” Justice Antonin Scalia told the North Carolina Bar Association that the court has no place acting as a “judge moralist” in issues better left to the people. Since judges aren’t qualified—or constitutionally authorized—to set moral standards, he argued, the people should decide what’s morally acceptable.
But does Scalia, whose quarter-century on the bench has marked him as the court’s moral scold for his finger-wagging views on social issues, have a coherent understanding of what it means to say something is or isn’t moral, and of morality’s proper role in the law?
Scalia would have you believe it’s liberal, pro-gay sympathizers who are imposing their own brand of moral laxity on the nation, and unconstitutionally using the courts to do it. His angry dissent in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case ending sodomy bans—decided 10 years ago this week—blasted the court for embracing “a law-profession culture that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda [which is] directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.”