Trust certain Ghanaians to take their ‘shenaniganism’ to the backyards of whoever opens his country for them and while at it, they are sure to make global headlines with their ‘get rich schemes.’
A Ghanaian based in Worcester, USA has pleaded guilty to $3.6 million fraud after she was busted for screwing the United States food stamp benefit system, which is to help support people of low income.
She attended Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology in Kumasi, Ghana from 1991-1994, according to her LinkedIn page. She enrolled in Quinsigamond Community College between 2003-2005 in Worcester where she studied electronics.
In 2011 her community college bragged about her and called her a “success story.”
CONVENIENCE STORE FRAUDSTER TAKES $3.6 MILLION FROM THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS
Convenience store owner Vida Ofori Causey out of Worcester, Mass. was charged in federal court Monday after pleading guilty to $3.6 million worth of food stamp fraud.
According to authorities, Causey abused the program between 2010 and 2014. Food stamps, officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), is run by local and federal agencies. It is overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). She was able to scam the program by buying food stamp benefits from receipts for half the actual value.
“Causey purchased the benefits at a discounted value of approximately fifty cents for every SNAP dollar,” a press release from Department of Justice stated. “By so doing, Causey caused the USDA to electronically deposit into a bank account controlled by her the full face value of the SNAP benefits fraudulently obtained.”
As a result, recipients had cash on hand to buy restricted items. The restricted items could include alcohol, cigarettes and even drugs. The program is supposed to be used to provide food to low-come individuals and families. In total, Causey defrauded the USDA for approximately $3,638,900.
SNAP is the nation’s largest food-assistance program. According to a report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the program has increased from 17 million participants in 2000 to nearly 47 million in 2014.
JUST A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION ON IMMIGATION FROM GHANA TO WORCESTER, MASS:
The demographics of the City of Worcester underwent a considerable change between 2000 and 2010, according to a new report from the Worcester Regional Research Bureau.
In “Worcester’s Demographic Trends: 2010 Census,” the Research Bureau found that the city’s African American population increased by 77 percent during the first decade of the 21st Century. During the same period, the Latino population grew by 45 percent and the Asian population grew by 31 percent as well.
Meanwhile, the number of residents identifying as white decreased by more than 5 percent, even as the city’s overall population grew by almost 5 percent to 181,045.
Since bottoming out in 1980, Worcester’s population has grown by nearly 20,000 residents, an increase of almost 12 percent over three decades.
Surprising Demographic Shifts
“I think the most surprising was where people are coming from,” said Roberta Schaefer, president and CEO of the Research Bureau.
As of the 2010 Census, 3,401 residents, or 9.63 percent of the city’s foreign-born population, immigrated from Brazil, earning the South American country the top spot on the list.
With 3,356 foreign-born residents, or 9.51 percent of the immigrant population, originating from Vietnam, the country came in a close second. Ghana rounded out the top three as the home country for 3,049 residents, or 8.64 percent of the foreign-born population in Worcester.
3 IN 4 REFUGEES ON FOOD STAMPS, MANY USING OTHER FORMS OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
The Office of Refugee Resettlement’s Annual Report to Congress for FY2013 reveals that nearly 3 in 4 refugees were on food stamps.
Additionally, nearly half were on some form of cash assistance and more than a half were on medical assistance. More than 20 percent were on Supplemental Security Income, more than 22 percent were in public housing and nearly 20 percent were on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).
The report noted that many households received more than one type of assistance and the data dealt with refugees who arrived in the U.S. between March 1, 2008 to February 28, 2013.
Muslims on food stamps make demands that will cost taxpayers another $150,000. Click here for the story.
Welfare: Who’s on It, Who’s Not?
F. Roger Devlin and Henry Wolff, American Renaissance, October 14, 2015
The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has published a new report called “Welfare Use by Immigrant and Native Households.” The report’s principle finding is that fully 51 percent of immigrant households receive some form of welfare, compared to an already worrisomely high 30 percent of American native households. The new study is based on the most accurate data available, the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). It also reports stark racial differences in the use of welfare programs.
Previous studies of welfare use have been based on the less accurate but more easily accessible data available from the Current Population Survey; this led to less alarming figures of 39 percent of immigrant households using welfare and 24 percent of native households. CIS’s Steve Camarota took the trouble to work with the SIPP data, which cover a larger number of welfare programs. His results have been independently verified by Decision Demographics, a company specializing in analysis of Census Bureau data.
The programs covered in Mr. Camarota’s study include Supplemental Security Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (what used to be most commonly called “welfare”), the Women, Infants and Children food program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“food stamps”), free and subsidized school lunches, Medicaid, and public housing and rent subsidies.
Needless to say, the percentage of immigrants using some form of welfare varies enormously according to the part of the world from which they come. Rates are highest for households from Central America and Mexico (73 percent), the Caribbean (51 percent), and Africa (48 percent). Those from East Asia (32 percent), Europe (26 percent), and South Asia (17 percent) have the lowest rates.
An appendix to the report includes some startling information on welfare use by race and ethnicity. In 2012, the most recent year for which figures are available, the percentages of each group that used at least one welfare program were as follow:
A majority of native black and Hispanic households are on some form of means-tested welfare, compared to just 23 percent of native white households.
A disproportionate share of welfare is directed to households with children. For this group, the corresponding numbers for 2012 are even higher:
A striking 82 percent of black households with children receive welfare–double the white rate. Hispanic families are not far behind blacks.
Of course, different welfare programs are used at different rates. What follow are sets of charts showing, first, the welfare rates for all US households, and second, welfare rates only for households with children. The percentages for Hispanic and black immigrants include both legal and illegal immigrants.
Among natives, blacks receive cash handouts at more than three times the white rate; Hispanics at more than twice the white rate. Rates for black and Hispanic immigrants are relatively lower due to often-ignored restrictions on immigrant use of these programs.
Among all households, native blacks and Hispanics receive food handouts at three times the white rate; for Hispanic immigrants, the figure is four times the white rate. Among households with children, nearly all immigrant Hispanics–86 percent–get food aid. Native blacks and Hispanics aren’t far behind, with rates of 75 and 72 percent, respectively.
It’s clear, too, that non-whites benefit disproportionately from Medicaid, which helps explain why red states have opted out of Medicaid expansion.
Native Hispanics and blacks, especially, are also heavy users of housing assistance. Among households with children, native Hispanics use these programs at nearly four times the white rate and blacks at seven times the white rate. Some effort is made to limit the access of illegal immigrants to subsidized housing, which helps explain why Hispanic immigrants get housing handouts at less than half the rate for native Hispanics. Amnesty for illegals would mean a sharp rise in the percentage of Hispanics in public or subsidized housing.
Spreading the wealth around
For each of the four welfare categories presented above, the black and Hispanic rates are at least double the white rates. Native Asians appear to use welfare at slightly lower rates than whites, but their SIPP sample size is too small to be certain. Asian immigrants, who are not included in the charts above, exceed native white welfare rates by about 25 percent (see table A3 in the CIS report). The US has three times as many immigrant Asian households as native Asian households.
What little public discussion there is of disproportionate welfare use by blacks and Hispanics is inevitably muddied by the claim that the majority of those receiving welfare are white. This ignores the fact that there are five times as many whites as blacks and four times as many whites as Hispanics in the United States; what matter are differences in the rates at which each group uses welfare. Furthermore, at least in terms of households, this claim is no longer be true.
According to data in the CIS report, there are 39.88 million households in the US receiving some sort of means-tested welfare. Of those households, just 19.66 million–or 49 percent–are either native or immigrant whites (Middle Eastern immigrants are classified as “whites”). That means the majority of US households on welfare are now non-white.
As mass Third-World immigration continues, the US will have an ever-burgeoning dependent class of non-whites. Black voters will be joined by increasing number of Hispanic voters in their support for more handouts. When they vote in 2016, a majority of black and Hispanic households are likely to be on welfare–just as they were in 2012. Arguments about freedom and limited government will mean nothing to them. Obamacare is just the beginning.
Whites must decide if this is the future they want for their children and grandchildren. If they don’t take action soon, blacks and Hispanics will decide for them.
Time has come for a full accounting and audit of all government handout programs. Interviews of SS disability, Welfare, Medicaid and other free programs by an independent Accounting firm from the Big Four. Our bet is that 50% will be unqualified to collect any benefit from the government. Additionally, the child care credit collected by illegal aliens who defraud the IRS is a high priority.
Who’s to Blame for the Mess in Puerto Rico?
Alex Witoslawski, American Renaissance, October 4, 2017
Puerto Ricans are blaming President Trump for the fact that two weeks after Hurricane Maria, their island is still a mess: power outages, flooding, fuel shortages, spotty cell service, washed out bridges, roads blocked by fallen trees. But who is really to blame for the island’s paralysis?
Consider this: Puerto Rico has a population of only 3.4 million but their elected government has run up a debt of over $70 billion and pension obligations of $50 billion. That’s more than $35,294 per resident and over 100 percent of GDP. Puerto Rico has already defaultedon a $58 million bond payment in 2016, due to its already-high taxes and unwillingness to cut government spending. It fell into crushing debt despite the $21 billion annually the island receives in aid from the United States, much of it spent on welfare programs such as Head Start, public housing, and food stamps. That’s over $6,000 per capita in federal welfare that the islanders consume. And due to the special status of the island, Puerto Ricans do not even pay federal income tax.
Borrowing and US handouts sustained the welfare habits of the people, but Puerto Rico left its infrastructure embarrassingly outdated. According to the Los Angeles Times, Puerto Rico’s electrical grid is so starved of physical and human capital that it suffers from power outages four-to-five times the average—even in good weather. Puerto Rico also failed to invest in infrastructure to protect against flooding. The island has few floodwalls and dangerously weak dams—a dam on the island cracked following the hurricane, forcing the evacuation of more than 70,000 people.
These problems were foreseeable and preventable, but liberals and Puerto Rican officials are blaming Donald Trump. Perhaps he is being too nice. Puerto Rico created its own problems; why should we be on the hook for them?
After acquisition by the United States following the Spanish-American War in 1898, the island’s residents never integrated with Americans culturally, linguistically, or racially. Puerto Ricans are culturally Hispanic, racially a mix of Spanish colonists, African slaves and Taino natives, and most of them don’t speak any English. They may technically be United States citizens but they share little common history or ancestry with Americans and are clearly a nation that developed separately from our own. And what could indicate a clearer sense of alienation from the United States than the fact that Puerto Rico has its own Olympic team?
Puerto Ricans, meanwhile, have many gripes with what they perceive as their American overlords. For example, even before this latest hurricane-induced crisis, a major problem for Puerto Rico was their inability to conduct trade independently. According to U.S. law, goods must travel between Puerto Rican and mainland American ports on American-made vessels before they are exported or imported. This weakens Puerto Rico’s economy.
The best solution would be to let Puerto Rico become an independent country, free to make its own decisions and responsible for its own problems. This could be done amicably and generously. Since we pay the island tens of billions of dollars every year in welfare payments, we could easily pay off their debt and give them post-hurricane humanitarian aid as incentives to independence.
We could also offer remigration cash incentives for Puerto Ricans living in America who are willing to give up their U.S. citizenship and move to the island. This would not only be an opportunity for the Puerto Rican diaspora in the United States to reunite with their people, but also a great way to reverse the brain-drain. Over the past century, many of the more intelligent and hard-working Puerto Ricans moved to the mainland for better opportunities. The 2010 U.S. Census counted the number of Puerto Ricans living in America at 4.6 million, making it America’s second-largest Hispanic group after Mexicans. This represents a tremendous loss in cultural, economic, and human capital for the island.
Finally, we could offer military protection and economic advice for a couple decades. Chile took economic advice from free-market economists from the University of Chicago and the economy boomed. With the right advice and incentives, Puerto Rico could experience a similar economic rebound.
Separation would come with an expensive up-front price tag for us, but it would save Americans money in the long run and would give Puerto Rico full control over its culture and destiny.