Podcasts about dependent children

This Day in Legal History: Social Security Act SignedOn August 14, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law, a landmark piece of legislation that reshaped the American social welfare system. The Act established several critical programs, including unemployment insurance, pension plans for the elderly, and "Aid to Dependent Children," which later became known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Born out of the economic devastation of the Great Depression, the Social Security Act was a cornerstone of Roosevelt's New Deal, aimed at providing financial security for vulnerable populations. The signing of this Act marked the beginning of a federal commitment to ensuring a safety net for the elderly, the unemployed, and families in need. The Social Security program has since evolved into one of the most enduring and significant aspects of American public policy, continuing to play a vital role in the lives of millions.Mars Inc. has agreed to purchase Kellanova, the brand behind Pringles, Eggos and Cheez-its, for nearly $36 billion, marking the largest packaged-food industry deal in almost a decade. The acquisition price includes $83.50 per share in cash, representing a 33% premium over Kellanova's closing price before the deal talks were reported. This move comes as the food industry faces declining volumes and slowing growth, prompting companies to seek consolidation and innovation. Kellanova, which spun off its cereal business last year, has shown strong earnings and raised its full-year guidance due to successful new products and marketing efforts. The deal, expected to close in the first half of next year, will allow Mars to diversify its portfolio beyond chocolate, especially as cocoa prices have surged. The transaction will be financed through Mars' cash reserves and a $29 billion bridge loan. Antitrust concerns are expected to be minimal, given the limited overlap between the companies' products. If the deal falls through due to regulatory issues, Mars would owe Kellanova a $1.25 billion termination fee.Mars Buys Snack Maker Kellanova in $36 Billion DealA New York judge, Justice Juan Merchan, has denied Donald Trump's request for the third time to recuse himself from the case in which Trump was convicted of falsifying business records related to hush money paid to Stormy Daniels. Trump's lawyers argued that Merchan had a conflict of interest due to his daughter's work for a political consultancy linked to Democratic campaigns. However, Merchan dismissed these claims, stating they were repetitive and lacked evidence. Trump was found guilty on 34 felony counts in May, with sentencing scheduled for September 18. The Manhattan District Attorney's Office labeled Trump's recusal attempts as frivolous.Trump loses third bid for judge to step aside in hush money case | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is contemplating breaking up Google following a court ruling that found the company monopolized the online search market. This would be the most significant antitrust action since the unsuccessful attempt to break up Microsoft two decades ago. Among the possible remedies, the DOJ is considering divesting units like the Android operating system and the Chrome web browser, or even forcing Google to sell its AdWords platform. Another option involves requiring Google to share data with competitors like Microsoft's Bing or DuckDuckGo, to level the playing field. The DOJ's deliberations follow Judge Amit Mehta's recent ruling against Google, which found that the company used illegal agreements to secure its dominance in search and search ads. The DOJ may also push for a ban on exclusive contracts that stifle competition, which were central to the case. If pursued, the breakup would be the largest since AT&T's dismantling in the 1980s. However, Google plans to appeal the ruling, and any DOJ proposal would need court approval.DOJ Mulls Google Breakup Push After Landmark Antitrust Win (1)The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has argued that the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Jarkesy v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission does not affect its ability to address illegal labor practices. The Supreme Court ruling found that the SEC's in-house enforcement practices violated the constitutional right to a jury trial, raising questions about the powers of other agencies. However, the NLRB maintains that its role in remedying worker harm is distinct from the punitive measures by the SEC, as it focuses on compensating workers rather than imposing penalties. Macy's, which is appealing an NLRB decision related to an illegal lockout, contends that the Supreme Court's ruling applies broadly, including to claims involving illegal firings, which the company argues are similar to common law wrongful termination cases. The NLRB cited a 2022 decision in Thryv Inc., which expanded its power to order compensation for direct or foreseeable financial harms. While the 5th Circuit Court invalidated the Thryv ruling on its merits, it did not address broader issues of remedies. The 9th Circuit is now considering the impact of the Jarkesy decision on the NLRB's authority.NLRB, Macy's duel over US Supreme Court ruling's impact on agency powers | ReutersYesterday, in a piece I wrote for Forbes, I explored the economic impact of tax breaks for data centers, arguing that while these facilities are essential to the modern digital economy, they don't generate long-term job growth as some proponents suggest. Instead, data centers resemble traditional infrastructure projects, offering utility rather than sustained employment. For example, in Washington State, tax incentives meant to create jobs in rural areas have primarily benefited large corporations like Microsoft, with minimal job creation for local communities.These data centers also place significant demands on local resources, such as electricity and water, especially in areas where these resources are scarce. Given their limited role in job creation, I suggest that public subsidies should focus on the construction and development of these centers and related internet infrastructure, rather than on ongoing operational support. By investing in infrastructure that enhances connectivity and sustainability, states can ensure public funds are used responsibly and generate broader social benefits.Tax Breaks For Data Centers Bring Few Jobs This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The second person charged in the deaths of Tylee Ryan, JJ Vallow, and Tammy Daybell is now in court. Chad Daybell, husband of Cult Mom Lori Vallow, facing the same charges as his wife and more. Shortly after her husband Charles Vallow's shooting death, Lori Vallow moves with her two children to Rexburg, Idaho. It's not far from where Chad Daybell, Vallow's lover and “husband from a past life” resides with his wife Tammy Daybell. Tylee Ryan and J.J. Vallow settle in, making a trip to Yellowstone National Park with their mom and uncle Alex Cox. A photo from that trip is the last proof of Tylee's life, and weeks later, J.J. Vallow stops going to school. Meanwhile, Vallow and Daybell spend more time together. The couple is seen loading a storage unit with Vallow's children's belongings. A month passes, and suddenly Daybell's wife Tammy is dead. Two weeks later, Lori Vallow is now Lori Vallow-Daybell after a wedding ceremony on a Kauai beach. Chad Daybell's wife Tammy Daybell dies in her sleep at the age of 49. Friends were shocked by her death, saying that Tammy was incredibly fit. The mom of five was training for a marathon and regularly attended high-intensity exercise classes with friends. However, Chad Daybell painted a very different story of his wife's health. He said Tammy Daybell was sickly, always coughing, and struggling with low blood pressure that led to fainting spells. Daybell said on the night of her death, Tammy Daybell had a coughing fit that led her to vomit. He helped her to bed and was startled awake when Tammy rolled onto the floor. Daybell says when he checked on her, he realized Tammy was dead. Fremont County Coroner, Brenda Dye, took Daybell's account of his wife's health into consideration when she ruled Tammy Daybell's cause of death to be pulmonary edema due to a cardiac event without performing an autopsy. By June of 2020, detectives are narrowing down what happened to J.J. Vallow and Tylee Ryan since their disappearance nearly six months earlier. Lori Vallow-Daybell is behind bars on two felony charges of Desertion & Nonsupport of Dependent Children after failing to produce Tylee and J.J. in court on January 30. On April 9, police announce their suspicion that Vallow and Vallow-Daybell conspired to kill Tammy Daybell. Rexburg Police return to Chad Daybell's home for another search. While Daybell is detained, investigators uncover human remains in a pet cemetery in Daybell's backyard. The remains are later confirmed to be J.J. Vallow and Tylee Ryan. Joining Nancy Grace Today: Vicki Hoban - Tammy Daybell's Aunt   Tom Evans - Juror on Lori Daybell Trial (chosen as an alternate); Book: “Money Power and Sex: The Lori Daybell Trial”    Tara Malek – Bosie, ID, Attorney & Co-owner of Smith + Malek; Former State and Federal Prosecutor; X: @smith_malek  Dr. Kendall Crowns – Chief Medical Examiner Tarrant County (Ft Worth) and Lecturer: University of Texas Austin and Texas Christian University Medical School Nate Eaton – News Director/Reporter for East Idaho News; Twitter: @NateNewsNow, Instagram: @n.eaton See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Good day ladies and gentlemen, this is IRC news, and I am Joy Stephen, an authorized Canadian Immigration practitioner bringing out this data analysis on the number of applicants approved for Canadian Permanent Residence for multiple years based on your country of Citizenship. I am coming to you from the Polinsys studios in Cambridge, OntarioCanada processed a total of 647 applications from Egypt nationals in 2018 for Canadian Permanent Residence under Family Class which includes (Spouses, Dependent Children, Parents & Grandparents) programs with a 88% success rate.Total of 607 applicants from Egypt nationals in 2019 under all Family Class  programs with a 91% success rate.Total of 296 applicants from Egypt nationals in 2020 under all Family Class  programs with a 93% success rate.Total of 696 applicants from Egypt nationals in 2021 under all Family Class  programs with a 95% success rate.Total of 629 applicants from Egypt nationals in 2022 under all Family Class  programs with a 92% success rate.If you have an interest in acquiring comprehensive insights into the The Canadian Federal Express Entry program or Canadian Federal or Provincial Immigration programs, or should you require guidance post-selection, we cordially invite you to connect with us via https://myar.me/c. We strongly recommend attending our complimentary Zoom resource meetings conducted every Thursday. We kindly request you to peruse the available resources diligently. Subsequently, should any queries arise, our team of Canadian Authorized Representatives is readily available to address your concerns during the weekly AR's Q&A session held on Fridays. You can find the details for both these meetings at https://myar.me/zoom. Our dedicated team is committed to providing you with professional assistance in navigating the immigration process. Additionally, IRCNews offers valuable insights on selecting a qualified representative to advocate on your behalf with the Canadian Federal or Provincial governments, accessible at https://ircnews.ca/consultant.

Good day ladies and gentlemen, this is IRC news, and I am Joy Stephen, an authorized Canadian Immigration practitioner bringing out this data analysis on the number of applicants approved for Canadian Permanent Residence for multiple years based on your country of Citizenship. I am coming to you from the Polinsys studios in Cambridge, OntarioCanada processed a total of 441 applications from Congo, Democratic Republic nationals in 2018 for Canadian Permanent Residence under Family Class which includes (Spouses, Dependent Children, Parents & Grandparents) programs with a 80% success rate.Total of 429 applicants from Congo, Democratic Republic nationals in 2019 under all Family Class  programs with a 76% success rate.Total of 216 applicants from Congo, Democratic Republic nationals in 2020 under all Family Class  programs with a 75% success rate.Total of 563 applicants from Congo, Democratic Republic nationals in 2021 under all Family Class  programs with a 77% success rate.Total of 702 applicants from Congo, Democratic Republic nationals in 2022 under all Family Class  programs with a 77% success rate.If you have an interest in acquiring comprehensive insights into the The Canadian Federal Express Entry program or Canadian Federal or Provincial Immigration programs, or should you require guidance post-selection, we cordially invite you to connect with us via https://myar.me/c. We strongly recommend attending our complimentary Zoom resource meetings conducted every Thursday. We kindly request you to peruse the available resources diligently. Subsequently, should any queries arise, our team of Canadian Authorized Representatives is readily available to address your concerns during the weekly AR's Q&A session held on Fridays. You can find the details for both these meetings at https://myar.me/zoom. Our dedicated team is committed to providing you with professional assistance in navigating the immigration process. Additionally, IRCNews offers valuable insights on selecting a qualified representative to advocate on your behalf with the Canadian Federal or Provincial governments, accessible at https://ircnews.ca/consultant.

Canada Permanent Residence Family Class (Spouses, Dependent Children, Parents & Grandparents) Data. Total Applications from 2018 to 2022 & Success rate Data about United States of America applicants Good day ladies and gentlemen, this is IRC news, and I am Joy Stephen, an authorized Canadian Immigration practitioner bringing out this data analysis on the number of applicants approved for Canadian Permanent Residence for multiple years based on your country of Citizenship. I am coming to you from the Polinsys studios in Cambridge, OntarioCanada processed a total of 6,724 applications from United States of America nationals in 2018 for Canadian Permanent Residence under Family Class which includes (Spouses, Dependent Children, Parents & Grandparents) programs with a 90% success rate.Total of 5,935 applicants from United States of America nationals in 2019 under all Family Class  programs with a 91% success rate.Total of 2,888 applicants from United States of America nationals in 2020 under all Family Class  programs with a 93% success rate.Total of 6,810 applicants from United States of America nationals in 2021 under all Family Class  programs with a 94% success rate.Total of 6,209 applicants from United States of America nationals in 2022 under all Family Class  programs with a 93% success rate.If you have an interest in acquiring comprehensive insights into the The Canadian Federal Express Entry program or Canadian Federal or Provincial Immigration programs, or should you require guidance post-selection, we cordially invite you to connect with us via https://myar.me/c. We strongly recommend attending our complimentary Zoom resource meetings conducted every Thursday. We kindly request you to peruse the available resources diligently. Subsequently, should any queries arise, our team of Canadian Authorized Representatives is readily available to address your concerns during the weekly AR's Q&A session held on Fridays. You can find the details for both these meetings at https://myar.me/zoom. Our dedicated team is committed to providing you with professional assistance in navigating the immigration process. Additionally, IRCNews offers valuable insights on selecting a qualified representative to advocate on your behalf with the Canadian Federal or Provincial governments, accessible at https://ircnews.ca/consultant.

Canada Permanent Residence Family Class (Spouses, Dependent Children, Parents & Grandparents) Data. Total Applications from 2018 to 2022 & Success rate Data about Bangladesh applicants Good day ladies and gentlemen, this is IRC news, and I am Joy Stephen, an authorized Canadian Immigration practitioner bringing out this data analysis on the number of applicants approved for Canadian Permanent Residence for multiple years based on your country of Citizenship. I am coming to you from the Polinsys studios in Cambridge, OntarioCanada processed a total of 1,183 applications from Bangladesh nationals in 2018 for Canadian Permanent Residence under Family Class which includes (Spouses, Dependent Children, Parents & Grandparents) programs with a 90% success rate.Total of 1,029 applicants from Bangladesh nationals in 2019 under all Family Class  programs with a 89% success rate.Total of 389 applicants from Bangladesh nationals in 2020 under all Family Class  programs with a 91% success rate.Total of 1,042 applicants from Bangladesh nationals in 2021 under all Family Class  programs with a 87% success rate.Total of 1,088 applicants from Bangladesh nationals in 2022 under all Family Class  programs with a 90% success rate.If you have an interest in acquiring comprehensive insights into the The Canadian Federal Express Entry program or Canadian Federal or Provincial Immigration programs, or should you require guidance post-selection, we cordially invite you to connect with us via https://myar.me/c. We strongly recommend attending our complimentary Zoom resource meetings conducted every Thursday. We kindly request you to peruse the available resources diligently. Subsequently, should any queries arise, our team of Canadian Authorized Representatives is readily available to address your concerns during the weekly AR's Q&A session held on Fridays. You can find the details for both these meetings at https://myar.me/zoom. Our dedicated team is committed to providing you with professional assistance in navigating the immigration process. Additionally, IRCNews offers valuable insights on selecting a qualified representative to advocate on your behalf with the Canadian Federal or Provincial governments, accessible at https://ircnews.ca/consultant.

Good day ladies and gentlemen, this is IRC news, and I am Joy Stephen, an authorized Canadian Immigration practitioner bringing out this data analysis on the number of applicants approved for Canadian Permanent Residence for multiple years based on your country of Citizenship. I am coming to you from the Polinsys studios in Cambridge, OntarioCanada processed a total of 998 applications from Brazil nationals in 2018 for Canadian Permanent Residence under Family Class which includes (Spouses, Dependent Children, Parents & Grandparents) programs with a 92% success rate.Total of 1,134 applicants from Brazil nationals in 2019 under all Family Class  programs with a 94% success rate.Total of 611 applicants from Brazil nationals in 2020 under all Family Class  programs with a 91% success rate.Total of 1,310 applicants from Brazil nationals in 2021 under all Family Class  programs with a 95% success rate.Total of 1,479 applicants from Brazil nationals in 2022 under all Family Class  programs with a 92% success rate.If you have an interest in acquiring comprehensive insights into the The Canadian Federal Express Entry program or Canadian Federal or Provincial Immigration programs, or should you require guidance post-selection, we cordially invite you to connect with us via https://myar.me/c. We strongly recommend attending our complimentary Zoom resource meetings conducted every Thursday. We kindly request you to peruse the available resources diligently. Subsequently, should any queries arise, our team of Canadian Authorized Representatives is readily available to address your concerns during the weekly AR's Q&A session held on Fridays. You can find the details for both these meetings at https://myar.me/zoom. Our dedicated team is committed to providing you with professional assistance in navigating the immigration process. Additionally, IRCNews offers valuable insights on selecting a qualified representative to advocate on your behalf with the Canadian Federal or Provincial governments, accessible at https://ircnews.ca/consultant.

Good day ladies and gentlemen, this is IRC news, and I am Joy Stephen, an authorized Canadian Immigration practitioner bringing out this data analysis on the number of applicants approved for Canadian Permanent Residence for multiple years based on your country of Citizenship. I am coming to you from the Polinsys studios in Cambridge, OntarioCanada processed a total of 483 applications from Tunisia nationals in 2018 for Canadian Permanent Residence under Family Class which includes (Spouses, Dependent Children, Parents & Grandparents) programs with a 95% success rate.Total of 442 applicants from Tunisia nationals in 2019 under all Family Class  programs with a 94% success rate.Total of 403 applicants from Tunisia nationals in 2020 under all Family Class  programs with a 93% success rate.Total of 566 applicants from Tunisia nationals in 2021 under all Family Class  programs with a 93% success rate.Total of 423 applicants from Tunisia nationals in 2022 under all Family Class  programs with a 91% success rate.If you have an interest in acquiring comprehensive insights into the The Canadian Federal Express Entry program or Canadian Federal or Provincial Immigration programs, or should you require guidance post-selection, we cordially invite you to connect with us via https://myar.me/c. We strongly recommend attending our complimentary Zoom resource meetings conducted every Thursday. We kindly request you to peruse the available resources diligently. Subsequently, should any queries arise, our team of Canadian Authorized Representatives is readily available to address your concerns during the weekly AR's Q&A session held on Fridays. You can find the details for both these meetings at https://myar.me/zoom. Our dedicated team is committed to providing you with professional assistance in navigating the immigration process. Additionally, IRCNews offers valuable insights on selecting a qualified representative to advocate on your behalf with the Canadian Federal or Provincial governments, accessible at https://ircnews.ca/consultant.

Good day ladies and gentlemen, this is IRC news, and I am Joy Stephen, an authorized Canadian Immigration practitioner bringing out this data analysis on the number of applicants approved for Canadian Permanent Residence for multiple years based on your country of Citizenship. I am coming to you from the Polinsys studios in Cambridge, OntarioCanada processed a total of 2,552 applications from United Kingdom nationals in 2018 for Canadian Permanent Residence under Family Class which includes (Spouses, Dependent Children, Parents & Grandparents) programs with a 92% success rate.Total of 2,310 applicants from United Kingdom nationals in 2019 under all Family Class  programs with a 92% success rate.Total of 1,124 applicants from United Kingdom nationals in 2020 under all Family Class  programs with a 91% success rate.Total of 2,646 applicants from United Kingdom nationals in 2021 under all Family Class  programs with a 93% success rate.Total of 2,312 applicants from United Kingdom nationals in 2022 under all Family Class  programs with a 94% success rate.If you have an interest in acquiring comprehensive insights into the The Canadian Federal Express Entry program or Canadian Federal or Provincial Immigration programs, or should you require guidance post-selection, we cordially invite you to connect with us via https://myar.me/c. We strongly recommend attending our complimentary Zoom resource meetings conducted every Thursday. We kindly request you to peruse the available resources diligently. Subsequently, should any queries arise, our team of Canadian Authorized Representatives is readily available to address your concerns during the weekly AR's Q&A session held on Fridays. You can find the details for both these meetings at https://myar.me/zoom. Our dedicated team is committed to providing you with professional assistance in navigating the immigration process. Additionally, IRCNews offers valuable insights on selecting a qualified representative to advocate on your behalf with the Canadian Federal or Provincial governments, accessible at https://ircnews.ca/consultant. 

Good day ladies and gentlemen, this is IRC news, and I am Joy Stephen, an authorized Canadian Immigration practitioner bringing out this data analysis on the number of applicants approved for Canadian Permanent Residence for multiple years based on your country of Citizenship. I am coming to you from the Polinsys studios in Cambridge, OntarioCanada processed a total of 426 applications from Turkey nationals in 2018 for Canadian Permanent Residence under Family Class which includes (Spouses, Dependent Children, Parents & Grandparents) programs with a 88% success rate.Total of 324 applicants from Turkey nationals in 2019 under all Family Class  programs with a 87% success rate.Total of 216 applicants from Turkey nationals in 2020 under all Family Class  programs with a 91% success rate.Total of 399 applicants from Turkey nationals in 2021 under all Family Class  programs with a 89% success rate.Total of 496 applicants from Turkey nationals in 2022 under all Family Class  programs with a 93% success rate.If you have an interest in acquiring comprehensive insights into the The Canadian Federal Express Entry program or Canadian Federal or Provincial Immigration programs, or should you require guidance post-selection, we cordially invite you to connect with us via https://myar.me/c. We strongly recommend attending our complimentary Zoom resource meetings conducted every Thursday. We kindly request you to peruse the available resources diligently. Subsequently, should any queries arise, our team of Canadian Authorized Representatives is readily available to address your concerns during the weekly AR's Q&A session held on Fridays. You can find the details for both these meetings at https://myar.me/zoom. Our dedicated team is committed to providing you with professional assistance in navigating the immigration process. Additionally, IRCNews offers valuable insights on selecting a qualified representative to advocate on your behalf with the Canadian Federal or Provincial governments, accessible at https://ircnews.ca/consultant.

Every act of kindness can be the ripple that creates a wave of change, and that's the heart of our conversation with Amanda-Leigh Player Hall and Ben Goldman from the Gary and Vivienne Player Foundation. As we unwrap the story behind their $75,000 matching challenge, we delve into the collective power of our community that turned it into a stunning $150,000 gift for Place of Hope. Amanda and Ben's passion echoes through their commitment to providing sanctuaries for at-risk children, a mission that resonates deeply Place of Hope's mission and the importance of nurturing environments where these young souls can flourish. Their vision is a testament to the legacy of Gary Player, not just as a golf legend, but as a beacon of positivity and holistic wellbeing.Our discussion traverses the landscape of poverty and its proximity to wealth, a reminder of the work that remains to be done. Charles Bender and Jamie Bond Ciancio with Amanda-Leigh Player Hall and Ben Goldman engage in a thought-provoking conversation about the role strategic philanthropy plays in breaking the relentless cycles of poverty, concentrating our efforts on stable housing, which is paramount in keeping families together and preventing children from entering foster care. The juxtaposition of luxury and lack serves as an urgent call for awareness and continued action in our society.As the episode unfolds, hope and mentorship emerge as powerful sculptors of tomorrow for vulnerable youths. We celebrate the unwavering influence of Gary Player, who at 89, sows seeds of hope with his lifelong dedication to service and giving. The future of philanthropy, strategies for sustaining a legacy that goes beyond the realm of sports, and the importance of transparency and financial stewardship are all woven into our narrative. Whether you're a longtime supporter or new to our cause, this episode reinforces the notion that every contribution lays another stone on the path to a better future for our children. Join us in honoring the spirits of service and legacy, and let's continue to uplift these voices that champion our youth.Upcoming Place of Hope Event:April 12th 10th Annual Angel Moms Brunch & Benefit "For the Love of Flowers" inspired by the iconic designs of Oscar de la Renta and Presented by Michelle HagertyPurchase Sponsorships & Tickets here! (Tickets go on sale February 14th at 8am)Upcoming Gary and Vivienne Player Foundation Event:May 5- 6, 2024Journey From Africa Event Jupiter, FLFor more information on this event, please email infoUSA@garyandvivienneplayerfoundation.org Host: Charles L. Bender III, Founding CEO and Board Member of Place of HopeCo-Host: Jamie Bond Ciancio, North County Director of Advancement & CommunicationsTitle Sponsor: Crypto Capital Venture | Follow Dan Gambardello's on Twitter (@cryptorecruitr)Looking for assistance  in south Florida? Visit VillagesOfHope.netLink:  Visit the Place Title Sponsor: Crypto Capital Venture | Follow Dan Gambardello's on Twitter (@cryptorecruitr)----------------- Producer: Maya Elias Copyright of Place of Hope 2023.

The law of conservation of mass dates from Antoine Lavoisier's 1789 discovery that mass is neither created nor destroyed in chemical reactions. Evidence of the past three decades leads Marvin Olasky to suggest a parallel Law of Conservation of Welfare regarding political reactions. In 1995-1996 the first GOP-majority House of Representatives in four decades changed AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) into TANF (Temporary Aid to Needy Families) but left alone dozens of other programs. As work requirements and time limits reduced the number of AFDC/TANF recipients, programs such as SNAP, SSI, and SSDI expanded. The conservation of welfare is not good for many recipients who would be much better off with challenging, personal, and spiritual help, but changing the law requires a charge from outside current chemical configurations. 

Learn about the elimination of the Optional Annuity for Dependent Children and who it affects. Previously, when a service member died on active or inactive duty in the line of duty, the surviving spouse could request to have their Survivor Benefit Plan annuity paid directly to an eligible dependent child or children. Beginning in 2023, however, the SBP monthly annuity payment must revert to the surviving spouse (once they submit documentation confirming eligibility). Host Bruce Moody speaks with Julie Burandt-Partin, director of retired and annuitant pay for the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. Visit https://www.dfas.mil/RetiredMilitary/survivors/SBP-2023-Optional-Child-Annuity-Reversion/ for more information about the elimination of the Optional Annuity for Dependent Children. Bruce Moody is a public affairs specialist with the office of Military Community and Family Policy. The Military OneSource podcast is an official resource of the Defense Department. For more information, visit MilitaryOneSource.mil or call 800-342-9647. Military OneSource is your 24/7 connection to information, answers and support to help you reach your goals, overcome challenges and thrive.

Learn about changes to the Survivor Benefit Plan annuity payments from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service and about the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation payments from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The changes, which go into effect for 2023, involve eliminating the Optional Annuity for Dependent Children, meaning eligible spouses will receive their full SBP payment from DFAS and their full DIC payment from the Department of Veteran Affairs. Host Bruce Moody speaks with Julie Burandt-Partin, director of retired and annuitant pay for DFAS, about the changes. Visit Military OneSource for more information about the phase-out of the SBP-DIC offset at https://www.militaryonesource.mil/media/news-and-releases/phase-out-of-the-sbp-dic-offset-frequently-asked-questions/. Bruce Moody is a public affairs specialist with the office of Military Community and Family Policy. The Military OneSource podcast is an official resource of the Defense Department. For more information, visit MilitaryOneSource.mil or call 800-342-9647. Military OneSource is your 24/7 connection to information, answers and support to help you reach your goals, overcome challenges and thrive.

On Legal Matters, we talk to Claire Thomson, specialist family law practitioner and head of the family law department at Witz Inc., joins us to talk the Supreme Court of Appeal's ruling that a parent can claim maintenance for adult dependent children from their divorced partner.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On Legal Matters we look at a court ruling that says that a parent can claim maintenance for adult dependent children on divorce, and were joined by Nilesthra Padayachee, Senior Associate at Richard Spoor Inc.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Mike and Spencer revisit the importance of planning for the care and welfare of dependent children in your estate plan.

The cries from the left predicting the end of the world in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade is a familiar sound. We heard the same after the historic reform in welfare in 1996 when Aid to Families with Dependent Children, which effectively subsidized low-income women to have children out of marriage, was replaced with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families — which introduced the idea of workfare. The reform, the left screamed, would throw low-income women mercilessly to the streets. But the result was quite the opposite. We had a dramatic decrease in welfare...Article Link

Spousal and dependent Children Canada Immigration Bangalore India Success Rates Good day ladies and gentlemen, this is IRC news and I am Joy Stephen, an authorized Canadian Immigration practitioner bringing out this Data Analysis release from the Polinsys studios in Cambridge, Ontario. Today is the 16th of March, 2022.Today we are going to talk about the total Visa applications processed through the spousal and dependents sponsorship other than parents and grandparents based on the visa post processing the applications. This video is about the Canadian post in Bangalore, India. This data is for the year 2019, 2020 and 2021. Bangalore as a good success rate in this family class and in 2019, Bangalore has accepted 5 applications with a success rate of 100%. In 2020, Bangalore processed only 2 applications probably because of COVID restrictions and had a success rate of 100% and last year, in 2021 Bangalore accepted 7 but no processing as yet Talking about the Trajectory, Bangalore has shown a grown in success rate year of year for the past 3 years. The Wholesome approach offered by Polinsys supports multiple Canadian Permanent Residence pathways both federal and provincial, on a single platform. Please attend the FREE on-demand webinars by following this link: https://polinsys.com/p

Archived recording of Pastor Rod Dewberry's talk on praying as dependent children during Prayer Week 2022

Mike Isaacson: I assure you World War II had little to do with it. [Theme song] Nazi SS UFOsLizards wearing human clothesHinduism's secret codesThese are nazi lies Race and IQ are in genesWarfare keeps the nation cleanWhiteness is an AIDS vaccineThese are nazi lies Hollow earth, white genocideMuslim's rampant femicideShooting suspects named Sam HydeHiter lived and no Jews died Army, navy, and the copsSecret service, special opsThey protect us, not sweatshopsThese are nazi lies Mike: Welcome to another episode of The Nazi Lies Podcast. You can join our Discord and get fun show merch by subscribing to our Patreon. Get access to our book club, calendar, advance episodes, and show notes, all at tiers starting as low as $2. Today we are lucky enough to have Daniel Kevles, Stanley Woodward Professor Emeritus of History, History of Medicine & American Studies at Yale University. For those who don't know, Dr. Kevles literally wrote the book on eugenics. His highly influential 1985 book, In the Name of Eugenics, remains a central point of reference for anyone studying the history or present of the eugenics movement. Thank you so much for joining us Dr. Kevles. Daniel Kevles: It's a pleasure to be with you, Michael. Mike: So before we talk about the eugenics movement proper, there were a lot of early scientific and medical research areas that influenced eugenics. Can you talk a bit about what biological and social science looked like in the Victorian era that led to the emergence of the eugenics movement? Daniel: Sure. The dominant trend or scientific movement, or knock off of science, was social Darwinism. It was a derivative of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, which he advanced in his famous and influential Origin of Species, which was published in 1859. As your listeners will know, Darwin argued that evolutionary success selected the most fit organisms for survival. And the social Darwinist, in a perverse fashion which I'll explain in a moment, borrowed or extracted from his theory the idea that social evolution put the most fit people at the top of society, both economically and socially, and relegated the least fit to the bottom. I say that it was a perversion of Darwinism in many ways, but not least because what Darwin meant by fitness was fitness for reproduction. That meant that the more offspring you reproduced, the more fit you were. And the fewer you reproduce, the less fit you are. The social Darwinists turned this idea on its head because they noticed that people at the top of society like themselves tended to have smaller families and people at the bottom of society had larger families. But that was a major impetus. Social Darwinism was a major impetus to the eugenics movement. In addition, there were also widespread theories of racial differences, where race meant not just what we understand it to be today, say principally black-white, or yellow-white or brown-white, but ace meant differences between groups that we understand to be nowadays just ethnic groups or national groups like Poles or Italians, or Hungarians, and Jews. There are theories around that characterized these different groups and attributed to them various characteristics, many of them socially deleterious. And then finally, there were studies of different people that were quantitative as in the case of craniometry, the measurement of the size of the head or of facial types in the 19th century, that attributed differences in character and intelligence to people of different, say, head sizes. So that's a Victorian background, but we shouldn't forget that right at the very end of the Victorian era, the rediscovery of Mendel's papers on heredity in peas which gave rise to the new discipline of genetics. And genetics had its roots in 19th century. Mendel did his work and then published in the mid-1860s, and was buried for a long time but then rediscovered in 1900 in three different places, and then burst upon the scene of science and was appropriated by eugenicists along with social Darwinism, racism, and the study of intelligence. Mike: One other thing that was kind of floating around there too was the the kind of enthusiasm for the sterilization of what they call the feeble minded, right? Daniel: Well, we're getting ahead of the story. It's not floating around very much at all. In the later 19th century, people did– physicians did sterilize, but they had some weird theories about sexual drive and so on, arising from over-development of the gonads especially in males. And of course there was also always the issue of prostitution, or prostitutes and easy women. But there was no movement for sterilization at all in the Victorian era, that came with the eugenics movement in the early 20th century. Mike: Okay. Now we can actually get into the actual eugenics movement then. First of all, let's talk about its founder, Francis Galton. Who is Galton and what kind of things did he believe? Daniel: Well, Galton was a remarkable man. He was a cousin of Charles Darwin. He was influenced by the Origin of Species. And he was curious about lots of things. He had gone to Cambridge, he was a failed medical student. He couldn't stand blood. Then he went to Cambridge where he studied mathematics and didn't do very well. And he was at sixes and sevens but very well to do, and so he took himself in the 1840s and 50s to the Middle East and then to Africa where he established a reputation of considerable authority as a geographer. And he came back to London and became a figure in geographical circles. But then in the mid-1860s, he got interested in following the publication of his cousin Charlie's book in differences in the quality of human beings. And he started with analysis of heredity and talent and did some biographical analyses connecting the genealogies of people who succeeded in Victorian society. His notions of success did not extend to the business very much at all, or indeed even much to, the arts. His notion of success was fundamentally scholastic and scientific, and to a certain degree, in the practices of state; that is politics and government. And so he mapped the relationship between people in different generations who succeeded in these areas and were prominent in British life and found that there was a very strong hereditary connection. They were all in some small cluster of families. And so he came to believe that there were powerful hereditary forces that shaped human beings and their ability to succeed at least in the areas that he studied. He decided that he wanted to figure out the laws of heredity because he convinced himself that heredity in human beings is very important for qualities of not only physical characteristics like blue eyes but also of talent and character. And so he couldn't experiment with human beings, but he did figure out that he could experiment with peas. And he was devoted to quantifying everything. He said, "Whenever you can, count!" While he was in Africa, for example, he was interested in the size of the female bodies and their shapes among the African natives, especially their tendency to have large back sides. And so he couldn't go and ask them to allow him to measure them, so he measured them at a distance through a telescope, and quantified and analyzed the results. He applied the same quantitative techniques to peas and discovered what we call now the law of regression, and then he wanted to see if law of regression worked in human beings. And I say he couldn't experiment with human beings, but he could take their measurements. He invited human beings, people in London, to an exhibition in 1884 where he measured the, say, height and the distance between the nose and the fingertips of parents and children, you know, such things. And he found that there were correlations, mathematically, in how they grouped themselves. They were not one-to-one correlations, but there were correlations in the sense that there was a strong statistical propensity for children to be like their parents, and so he devised from this the law of statistical correlation. And regression and correlation have proved to be ever since two of the most profoundly important statistical tools for analyzing a whole bunch of different things. The point I want to make here is that he was not only eccentric in his interest and devoted to the study of heredity of a certain kind, but also that he established a research programme as part of eugenics. And right all the way through the heyday of the eugenics movement, we have eugenics as a social movement and also as a research programme. For example, one more thing about Galton is that in his later years, he wanted to institutionalize the study of heredity for eugenic purposes, and he gave University College London a lot of money to establish the Galton Eugenics Laboratory, which became a major center for research in eugenics and then ultimately, in human heredity. And then today, it's one of the leading centers of research in human heredity and human genetics that we have. Mike: So let's talk a little about what eugenics says. When most people think of eugenics they think of selective breeding or maybe the Holocaust, but that really discounts kind of the breadth of the theory and its popularity and influence. What kind of people became eugenicists and what kinds of things did they say? Daniel: Well first, it's important to recognise that eugenics was a worldwide movement. It wasn't confined to England or to the United States or to Germany. It expressed itself in all of the major countries of Europe and had corollary movements in Latin America and in Asia, and to some degree in the Middle East. It's a kind of universal phenomenon among people who were of a certain class. We would recognise them as middle to upper middle class and also people who were educated and scholastically interested. They also tended to be, in this country and in England, to be White, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant. They were, how shall I put it? They were distressed in this country by the negative sides of urbanizing and industrializing society, with its sharp distinctions and deep distinctions of class and economic standing. They were apprehensive that the lower income groups were out-reproducing upper income groups and thus leading to the degeneration of the population, they thought. And they responded to this with a eugenics movement, drawing on the new biology of genetics and the cultural context of social Darwinism. So what they did was to invent two different kinds of eugenics, one which they called positive eugenics, and the other was negative eugenics. And the positive eugenics was aimed at people over the middle and upper classes, mainly white Anglo Saxon Protestants, with the idea that they should reproduce more. And they devised various means to incentivize that reproduction. Then they invented negative eugenics, which was to discourage lower income groups from reproducing as much as they were. That's basically how it all started and what the outlines of their commitments and programmes were. Mike: And there were kind of some camps of eugenicists, right? I mean, there was like socialists, there was conservative people who were eugenicists... Daniel: Right. There were– Eugenics was not by any means a uniform movement. For example, here in the United States there were African-American eugenicists; there were Jewish eugenicists; there were no Catholic eugenicists of any standing to speak up because the church, the Roman Catholic Church, strongly opposed any kind of interference with human reproduction, ranging on one side to contraception and abortion, and on the other side to sterilisation. So, you have disparate groups. And eugenics was embraced by a number of people on the left, socialists in England and the United States, and what they shared with people on the right was the tantalizing faith that the new science of genetics could be deployed to improve the human race. Now, they were encouraged in this regard because in the early 20th century, late 19 to early 20th century, science commanded enormous authority. It was changing the world manifestly every day in ways that people experienced, in telephones, in movies, in automobiles, in aircraft, and in radio. These were forms of physical technologies, and so people thought, "Well, now that we have genetics, why can't we do this in biology as well?" And people were doing it on the farm by improving a corn or pigs or what have you, farm animals and farm plants. And so the idea that you could extend it to a human being was seemed perfectly natural. The socialists and the conservatives, however, had much different attitudes towards one particular element in the eugenics movement, and that was the role and rights of women. Conservatives wanted to devote women to the reproduction of– You know, the “good women” to the reproduction of more children, and only in the context of marriage. Whereas the Socialists were much more inclined to embrace free love and new ways of women taking their place in society. So they were at loggerheads on those two things, and for that reason they also disagreed about birth control at least for some years. So, it was a coalition of ideologically different groups and religiously different groups. Mike: Now eugenics is kind of unique among scientific theories in that it was popularized largely outside of the academy. In a way, it also kind of pioneered modern grant funding. Talk about how eugenics became popular. Daniel: Well, it became popular in the way that lots of things were becoming popular in the early 20th century. There are mass circulation magazines, for example, by the 1920s–magazines like Collier's and The Saturday Evening Post. There were many books published on eugenics, many articles and magazines by popular lectures. There were some films on eugenics. There were also lectures and exhibitions. We have, for example, many state fairs, agricultural fairs in the South and Midwest, and in these places the American Eugenics Society mounted exhibits. And also things that were called the Fitter family contest where people could enter as individuals or families, and they would be judged. And these contests occurred in what were called the human stock section that is distinct from the agricultural stock. And many families entered these contests. If you entered as an individual you could win a Capper medal in the state of Kansas. It's hard to tell exactly what made these families fitter, but one indicator is that they all had to take the Wassermann test for syphilis. So there's a certain middle class morality that suffused the eugenics movement as well. What also made it popular was that the eugenics literature allowed you, or the eugenics ideal allowed people, in middle classes to discuss issues that were not comfortably discussed publicly for the most part. And I have in mind issues of sex, of pregnancy, and of child rearing, but especially sex and pregnancy. Since if you're interested in the improvement of the race biologically, inevitably, you have to talk about sex; who's having sex with whom? And talk about contraception and so on. Eugenics enabled people to talk about those things publicly or attend lectures on them publicly. Mike: Okay. Let's talk about what the eugenicists were advocating for. What was their agenda politically? Daniel: Well as I said, in this country and in England, eugenicists were mainly White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. They were distressed by the increasing number of lower-income poor people in the cities. They were also even more distressed by the behavioural characteristics that they attributed to these people, notably alcoholism, criminality, poverty, and prostitution. They attributed these characteristics to bad biology. They were also, in an overlapping way with what I just said, disturbed by the enormous wave of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe that flooded into the United States from the 1880s to the late teens or the early 20s. They thought that these people were biologically inferior and disproportionately responsible for the social sins that I've mentioned, such as alcoholism, etc. So what they wanted to do then– And in addition, they also began to have access to quantitative demonstrations or evidence, allegedly, that these people were mentally inferior, that they had lower intelligence. And where that came from was World War I and the administration of an IQ tests to the 1.7 million American men who were drafted into the US Army. The tests were developed and so widely administered in the army because the army had the unprecedented task of trying to place all these people in suitable tasks, whether they were going to be in infantry or drive jeeps--not jeeps, that's an anachronism--but drive cars or be in the medical service or whatever; Quartermaster Corps, Signal Corps, etc. They had to find out if they were mentally capable– what task they were mentally suited for. So way after the war the results of the IQ tests were published by the National Research Council, and differentiated in terms of country of national origin, region of the United States, and so on, and also by race-- black or white, etc. And it didn't take too much of a high intelligence to figure out--that is, you didn't have to be a rocket scientist--to take this data and conclude that the recent immigrants had lower IQs as compared with native Whites, and to conclude even further that Blacks were simply inferior to everybody. So all of these trends together--the social behaviors, the disproportionate representation of lower income groups especially recent immigrants among the impoverished and the imprisoned, and the IQ tests that reinforced the idea that they were really not very smart–led to a series of legislative proposals. Nationally, eugenicists provided a scientific rationale for the immigration restriction movement that culminated in the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924, which grossly discriminated against immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe. Secondly, at the State level, the eugenicists deploying their data were strong advocates of eugenic sterilization laws, and they were passed in several dozen-- well, not several dozen-- but a dozen or more states before World War I. They were declared unconstitutional by state courts and appeals courts in the States on grounds that they were cruel and unusual punishment because some of these laws required castration, or that they provided unequal protection of the laws. I mean, they didn't conform to equal protection because the only people eligible for eugenic sterilization were those who were incarcerated in homes with the so called feeble-minded, and an unequal protection of the laws, and that they violated the 14th Amendment due process. So in the early 1920s these laws were revised, and a model sterilization law was developed by a guy named Harry Laughlin at the Cold Spring Harbor Eugenics Record Office and taken up in the state of Virginia as a model law. It provided for due process with a hearing, it did not provide for castration, and so on. And they proposed to sterilize a woman named Carrie Buck under this new law in the early 1920s, and they intended this as a model case–a test of the law and its constitutionality. And eventually it made its way through the state courts, appeals courts and into the Supreme Court. Mike: Can you talk a bit about who Carrie Buck was and kind of what her situation was? Daniel: Sure. Carrie Buck was not an immigrant, she was a native Virginian. She was lower income, not well educated, and she was living in a foster home when she was a high teenager, I forget her exact age. The later research showed that she was raped by the son in the house. The authorities at the time didn't know that, but it was sufficient for them that she became pregnant with an illegitimate child. So she had this child and–I'm blocking on the name, I'll come to it. It'll pop up in my head in a minute–and she was consigned, because she had an illegitimate child, to the Virginia Colony for the Feebleminded. Illegitimacy was enough to tag a woman as feeble minded. She was put in the institution, her mother was there as well, and they were given IQ tests, and they scored in the feebleminded range. Oh, Vivian. Vivian was the name of the little girl, Carrie's child. And a nurse was assigned to test her at the age of eight months and came back, of course she couldn't give her an IQ test, but she came back and said she had a "odd look" about her and therefore cataloged her as feebleminded as well. So there you had it, you see, with Carrie's mother Emma, and Carrie, and then Vivian, all of them found to be feebleminded in the Virginia colony. And so their feeblemindedness was putatively taken to be strongly hereditary in character. And this was introduced as evidence in the Supreme court hearing in the case of the Buck v. Bell in 1927. So the court-- have I told you enough about Carrie Buck? Mike: Yeah, yeah. Sure. Daniel: I mean, and she was characterized as quote "poor White trash" by this same fellow Laughlin, who didn't go to Virginia to examine her, but was given a case record about her, and he characterized her that way. So his evidence was introduced, and the evidence of three generations of imbeciles, in Carrie Buck and her mother and Vivian, were all introduced as evidence. And the Court ruled by a majority of eight to one to uphold the constitutionality of the Eugenic Sterilization Law in Virginia. The majority decision was delivered by a very progressive jurist, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. And the decision was in a perverse way, a progressive decision. What do I mean by that? Well, the courts before the 1920s, were involved in litigation concerning the legitimacy or the constitutionality of laws passed to regulate business. Businesses, corporations, claim that they were individuals and that these laws were unconstitutional because they were being deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law. Well, they had due process in this procedural sense, but they were claiming due process in what came to be called a substantive sense. That is, the substance and the right that was being taken away. Their substantive claim was that they had a right to do with their corporations as they saw fit, to charge whatever prices, for example, they wanted. And Holmes was in the school of progressive jurists who said that substantive due process can also be limited, and the substantive right is not absolute and you can take away a substantive right for the public good–the public good being a more economically equitable society. So he applied that same kind of reasoning and Buck v. Bell. The claim was that the Carrie Bucks of the world threatened the public good by reproducing because they were biologically degenerate in character. And so it was legitimate, according to Holmes, to sterilize Carrie even though it took away her substantive right to reproduce. And what trumped her substantive right to reproduce was precisely the service of the public good trumping that right produced. Which is to say that by sterilizing the the Carrie Bucks of the world, the United States would be safeguarded from the degeneration of its population. So it's a progressive decision in that that Holmes, in character of his beliefs, said that the public good dominates Carrie's right to reproduce. It puts Carrie in the same substantive relationship to the public good as a corporation, and they were claiming that they had the right to charge whatever prices they want, for example. And Holmes took for granted the evidence introduced by people like Harry Laughlin that feeblemindedness was hereditary in the Buck line, and a dictum that as part of Holmes' decision, is rung infamously down the annals of courts jurisprudence, Holmes wrote that, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough," meaning Emma, Carrie and her daughter Vivian.  Mike: And so– Daniel: By the way, that decision has never been flatly repudiated, Buck v. Bell. It has been undermined enormously by later jurisprudence on the 14th Amendment and so on, so that you cannot forcibly sterilize a woman nowadays legally by invoking some kind of eugenic law. But it might interest your listeners to know that Buck v. Bell was invoked by the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade in service of the following point: does the state have a right to interfere with the human reproductive process? And as we know now, as a matter of high public interest, the Court in Roe v Wade says the State has no right to interfere with reproduction to the point of quickening. But then once quickening occurs, and the fetus acquires the ability to live outside the womb, then it does have the right to interfere, and the Court invoked Buck v. Bell in saying that. Mike: So between the Immigration Control Act and the sterilization laws, how long are these policies in effect? Daniel: Well, the Immigration Restriction Act was in place until the mid 1960s. It was then revised, and the national origins criteria that discriminated against people from Eastern and Southern Europe was abolished. That produced the wave of immigration that we've known heavily from the Middle East and Asia and Latin America since the mid '60s. The sterilization laws, as I say, were never frontally struck down, but they have been undermined since the expansion of the reach of the 14th Amendment beginning in the 1940s and since. But this is not to say that eugenic sterilization did not persist after World War II. It did until probably the very early 1970s. The reasons for it were different, you know, state sterilization were different after World War II. For example, North Carolina which had hardly done any eugenic sterilization before the War, got into it in a big way after the War because the people who were winding up in the hospital, which is where the sterilizations were conducted, tended to be lower income African American women. And it's not a state policy, but it was sort of on the initiative of the doctors in the hospitals. But there is a kind of sympathetic support of it on the part of the State because the New Deal measure of Aid to Families with Dependent Children gave rise to so-called welfare mothers who were in North Carolina disproportionately Black. And so, North Carolina sterilized a lot of Black women in the hospitals, not by state law but by apprehension on the cost of welfare. I should add, though, that there's an excellent study of North Carolina sterilization, which reminds us once again that it is all kind of complicated insofar as women in the relationship to eugenics are concerned.A number of the women who wound up as a candidate for sterilization in North Carolina, as I say, were Black. They were also already the mothers of multiple children. And they did not have access to birth control, and they asked to be sterilized. They volunteered for it because it was the only way open to them of limiting their births after having a number of children. So it was liberating for some fraction of the African-American women who were sterilized in North Carolina. But anyway, the process of sterilization continued until the early 70s when it was widely exposed and condemned. And it's pretty much ceased since then. Mike: You also discuss in the book a distinction between mainline and reform eugenics. Was this terminology used among eugenicists themselves? Daniel: Not at all. I invented the terms in the book– Mike: Okay. Can you explain the distinction then? Daniel: –to distinguish between the early eugenicists, whom I called mainline, and the eugenicists, or the people who embraced the idea of eugenics, that is improving the human race and improving the human family as well beginning in the 1930s. They were reformers in the sense that they wanted to use biological knowledge to improve the race on the whole, but also they were much more focused on the family than were the earlier eugenicists. What mainly differentiated them also from the so called mainline eugenicists was that they recognised the degree of racism that pervaded the American Eugenics Movement, and they were staunchly opposed to any kind of racist eugenics. They just wanted a eugenics that was based purely on human talents and character, including medical features of human beings with regard to, say, deleterious diseases like Huntington's and Tay–Sachs and so on, and wanted to deploy human genetics to good familial and social ends. And so part of their programme was not only to try to get rid of racism in American eugenics, but also to establish eugenics on a sound scientific basis. Their efforts played a significant role in emancipating the study of human heredity from eugenics, and setting and establishing it as a field that we call human genetics rather than eugenics. Mike: Okay. Now, neo-eugenicists, nazis, and people who don't know better like to say that eugenics declined because the end of the Second World War made it unpopular because of the Nazis, but that isn't quite true. How did eugenics really die? Daniel: Well, the idea of eugenics, I should add, hasn't fully died. Mike: Right. Daniel: People are still eager, even more so than ever, to have healthy children. Now that is taken by some to be a kind of neo-eugenics. I disagree with that point of view. If you just want to have a healthy child, or don't want to have a child that is doomed to die at the age of three as Tay-Sachs children are, then that seems to me a legitimate reason for a) developing knowledge of human genetics, and b) deploying it in reproduction, conception, and pregnancy. And millions of people make use of that kind of knowledge nowadays through prenatal diagnosis and abortion. So it's not eugenics in the sense that it's trying to make a better society or a better human race, but it's simply a means of having a healthy, happy family. In that sense, the ideal of controlling human reproduction in a genetic way for improvement is about the family rather than the human race. But eugenics as a social movement did die off. First, a key feature, a central feature of what I call mainline eugenics was precisely that the State was invoked in its advancement. You can't have it, you know, immigration restriction without the US government. And you can't have state eugenic sterilization laws without state governments. What died away was the willingness of people to invoke the state, deploy the state, enlist it if you will, in the control of human reproduction in a eugenic fashion. The reason for that was partly because of the response to the Holocaust and the Nazis, because there was the invocation of the state for these nefarious purposes in human reproduction to an extreme degree. Secondly, there were all these extensions of the 14th Amendment that made it dicey, or in many respects, impossible for the state to interfere in human reproduction in the way of the mainline eugenicists. But then also, there was a whole congerie of scientific developments in social sciences and in genetics itself that undercut the scientific doctrine of mainline eugenics. So the recognition, for example, that human characteristics are shaped to a significant degree by environment as well as by genes, that is by nurture as well as by nature. Secondly, the idea that the characteristics that people admire so much, like ability to do well in a scholastic test or get good grades or be a doctor or lawyer or what have you, that those are not genetically simple to a degree that they are genetic at all. They are undoubtedly, to some degree genetic, but they involve clusters of many genes. And no one to this day knows how to figure out what goes into the human characteristics and behaviors that we admire as well as deplore. I say deplore by criminality, the quest for genetic accounts of criminality go on, but they rise up and then they are slapped down by further research repeatedly. Then there are the characteristics that we admire and willing to pay a lot for such as the ability to put a basketball through a hoop at 30 feet. Nobody knows what role genes play in that either, and it's gonna be a long time if ever before they figure it out. So, the complexity of the human organism, if you will, has also helped to undercut either both positive eugenics and negative eugenics, each in its own somewhat different way but in very similar ways. So those certainly helped undercut eugenics and basically destroy it as a social movement. Then there's also the rise to power and advancement in society of precisely the groups who were the targets of eugenicists in the early 20th century, that is the then new immigrants coming from Eastern Europe and Southern Europe–Italians, Poles, Hungary, Hungarian and so on. They have done very well in American society, in all branches of it. And so that in and of itself, they are kind of a living repudiation of the early doctrines of eugenics, and they provide a kind of strong caution for us in embracing the temptation of any kind of new eugenics of social nature. So all of those things together had a lot to do with corroding the foundations of eugenics and removing it basically as a social movement. I go back to in the contemporary scene in these kinds of analyses and say that, when we talk about the new reproductive technologies or CRISPR or what have you, and say that they're giving rise, or can give rise, to a new eugenics, I just think that's counterproductive and it doesn't get us anywhere. And for my money, I think we should–[laughs] What I'm saying is putting myself out of business, if you will-- just get rid of the idea of eugenics in discussing what goes on in contemporary molecular biology and reproductive technologies, and talk about them in and of themselves, rather than try to tie them to any kind of eugenics. Mike: Yeah, I'd actually kind of agree with that. Because looking at what eugenicists who are still around do now, none of them are doing genetic or molecular biological research, right? They're all psychologists doing twin studies– Daniel: Well, I can't say. I can't say. I mean, there are some biologists who are neo-eugenicists, but I just don't see any widespread support for them in the scientific community or elsewhere. Mike: Okay so I asked this same question to my last guest when we were talking about the science of sex differences in the brain, but I think it works equally well here. So what can we learn from the story of eugenics both as scientists and as people who listen to scientists? Daniel: Well, that's a very good question Michael. It's hard to provide any kind of blanket answer. And any answer might lead to counter examples that are not very attractive. So let me illustrate what I just said. I think what we need to do in responding to these things, or these kind of dreams, is to be cautious when claims are made in the name of science, especially those of long term consequence that border on the utopian, for example that we can engineer human beings, etc. I just don't think that's in the offing. But even when more modest claims are made, I think we just have to be cautious. It's good idea to raise an eyebrow whenever you hear them and whenever people are asked to turn them into social, economic political movements. An advantageous way of threading this needle is to encourage people to be as scientifically literate as possible. That itself is a utopian quest. But I think that it behooves us all to do that. Now we also need to pay attention as to whether any scientific claims, as in the case of sex differences between men and women, need to be treated with particular caution when they imply anything about human rights. And that is, you know, that we ought to curtail human rights of any kind or in any group because of alleged biological claims, or privilege others because of biological claims. I think we need to be very cautious about that. I say this can be hazardous and cut more than one way, one of these points I'm making, because I automatically right away think about the the claims of the anti-vaxxers nowadays. They say we shouldn't pay attention to scientific authority, that they're interfering with human rights and liberty etc. So you have to be judicious in the way you think about this degree of skepticism. Skepticism of the kind I'm talking about does not extend to the anti-vaxxers because virtually the entire scientific community is of one voice and one mind in saying that vaccines work, and that they're socially important, and medically important, etc. Whereas, I think in other claims about sex differences between men and women, you will find sharp divisions in the scientific community. So we need to pay attention to how the scientific community is thinking about these things as well. Mike: Okay well, Dr. Kevles, it has been an honor to have you on The Nazi Lies Podcast to talk about eugenics. Again, the book is In the Name of Eugenics out from Harvard University Press, an absolute classic in the history of science. Thanks again for coming on the podcast. Daniel: Thank you, Michael. Pleasure to chat with you. Mike: If you liked this episode of The Nazi Lies Podcast and want more, consider subscribing to our Patreon. Patrons get exclusive access to early episodes, even earlier access to show notes, access to the calendar, and a membership slot in our book club on Discord. Come join us weekly as we read and discuss the books of our upcoming guests. Go to patreon.com/nazilies to sign up. [Theme song]

Pictured: Clara "Mother" Hale, Founder, The Hale House Bonus read from Dennis Kimbro's Book, "Think and Grow Rich: A Black Choice" Get your copy Dr. Kimbro's book: https://amzn.to/3t5HEAB More of Dr. Kimbro's Work: https://amzn.to/36oGpm6 If you need some help getting your self together or putting this message into practice here are some practical resources. Make a Plan for yourself: https://www.selfauthoring.com/ Write it Out: https://amzn.to/3eiLocF GET THE FULL PODCAST EPISODE ON YOUR FAVORITE PODCAST PLAYER OR AT itsmytimepodcast.com Follow Asher Tchoua Online: IG: @itsmytimepodcast LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/asher-tchoua-eit-45514b24/ Web: solo.to/imtp --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/asher-tchoua0/message

How does codependency begin?  It seems elusive, but when you look into human development it begins to clear up.  Pia Mellody, an author of several books related to codependency, breaks down 5 traits that all children are born with.  How their parents respond to the needs of these traits effects a child's codependency development.The 5 traits are:Valuable--All children are valuable and have automatic worth (still true when they become adults, too!)Vulnerable--Children replicate their parent's boundaries and when to be vulnerable, and when to not beImperfect--Healthy families know everyone is imperfect.  But what if imperfection wasn't allowed in your family?Dependent--Children need assistance.  In healthy families this is understood.  In families with dysfunction, needs can be overhelped, belittled, or ignored.  All with tough consequences.Immature--You can only be as mature as your age.  When you're expected to be older, or allowed to act younger there is much you miss out on.How do you respond to these 5 traits in today's episode?  Leave me a DM on IG, I'd love to hear from you!Make sure to screen shot yourself listening to the episode and share it on social media (don't forget to tag me @soulamplified )  Be well Soul Sister!Contact Me or Consume My Stuff Here:Sign up for my NEW Transforming Your Codependency Text messages!  I can be in your texts messages every Monday, Wednesday and Friday.  I'll be giving advice, loving reminders and information to help you love yourself and heal that codependency NOW. Sign up by texting the word PEACE to 877-338-0875 or visit this web site:  https://slkt.io/xlBeIt's time for the next round of The People Pleaser Recovery Roadmap!  Do you want a complete codependency overhaul, where in 9 months you could state your needs without guilt, easily set boundaries and let go of the suffering that so many nuances of codependency causes?  Well then it's time for a Curiosity Call to learn if this is the right program for you!  Click here to set up a Curiosity Call (or DM me) to learn more about the People Pleaser Recovery Roadmap and get signed up to start August 2021!https://app.acuityscheduling.com/schedule.php?owner=18953727&appointmentType=19164977Instagram:  @SoulAmplifiede-mail me about coaching, The People Pleaser Recovery Roadmap Course, or other questions:  Vanessa@soulamplified.org

This podcast presents an approach to medical complexity and technology dependence in children. In this episode, listeners will learn how these terms are defined, how to assess a child with medical complexity and technology dependence, as well as appreciating the impact of caring for a child with medical complexity on the family. This podcast was developed by Sara Rizakos in collaboration with Dr. Nathalie Major, a complex care pediatrician at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario.

Cara Pollard is the CEO and founder of Cara Pollard Coaching (CpC). CpC partners with corporations to support parent employees. They develop transformative programs to help people parent successfully while working. They also partner with schools and organizations to provide parent support groups, workshops, and teacher trainings.Cara also offers individual coaching services to executives, families, couples, men, women and teens. She transforms lives by drawing upon her in-depth background in her legal and academic experience. She is a lifelong learner and is highly trained in a variety of disciplines. She is a PCI certified parent coach, trained in DE&I Initiatives, and conflict resolution/mediation skills training. Cara creates the scaffolding individuals need to meet the demands and complexities of our modern world. She also hosts the podcast Mindfulness at Work. Connect with Cara:FacebookLinkedInInstagramTwitter: @cpparentcoach1WebsiteCourse (Special rate right now = $97)Mindfulness at Work - The Podcast---Join the Me Time Midlife Community on Facebook here. 

Brittany Nash is a Black domestic transracial adoptee and the founder of The Daily Adoptee blog and soon to be online publication that highlights the experience and expertise of transracial adoptees.   As an adoptee, turned foster child, who from Southern MN, she uses her experience of growing up in predominantly white spaces to connect the dots of the intent and impact of the adoption industry and foster care system as they align with history, politics, racism, discrimination, and mental health.    She graduated Magna Cum Laude with a Bachelors of Arts degree in Communication from Bethany Lutheran College where her emphasis was Journalism and Business. While there she also worked for the college's Diversity Center where she started to kindle her passion for social advocacy. She combines her love for investigative journalism, descriptive writing, and racial justice to bring a unique adoptee narrative to adoption and foster care spaces. Timeline of Events and Key Legislation:  1921: Tusla Race Massacre 1935: Social Security Act 1939 -1945: World War ll  1945: Baby Scoop Era begins 1947: Cold War begins 1948: Executive Order 9981: Desegregation of the Armed Forces  1954: Civil Rights Movement 1955 - 1975 Vietnam War 1954: Browning vs Board of Edu 1961: ADC Foster Act 1962: Aid to Families with Dependent Children 1962: Public Welfare Amendment  1965: Death of Malcolm X 1964: Civil Rights Act 1968: Death of Martin Luther King Jr. 1968: Civil Rights Movement 1969: Death of Frank Hampton 1967: Loving vs the State of Virginia  1970: Baby Scoop Era ends 1971: War on Drugs begins 1978: Indian Child Welfare Act 1980: The Adoption Assistance & Child Welfare Act 1991: Cold War ends 1993: Family Preservation & Family Support Services Program (MEPA) begins 1994: The Multi-Ethnic Placement Act 1996: Inter-Ethnic Placement Provisions (revised parts of MEPA) 1997: the Adoption & Safe Families Act   Reference Articles: A Brief Legislative History of the Child Welfare System Brief History of the Drug War The case for national action- the negro famil Donate to the TRA Writers & Educators Fund  

Like me on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/UhuruCommunications Visit my website https://mauriceshowersvo.com/ Cash app me: $MauriceShowers email: maurice@mauriceshowers.com Leave a voice message https://anchor.fm/maurice-showers/message Maurice Showers' daily reading of Dennis Kimbro, Bestselling Author of Think and Grow Rich: A Black Choice. Daily Motivations for African-American Success. Including Inspirations from Famous African-American Achievers. "Witticisms, meditations, and thoughts to ponder...inspire, teach, and dream." - Booklist For September 18th Link to African Traditions: https://www.afrikantraditions.com/ --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/maurice-showers/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/maurice-showers/support

Some of my favorite childhood toys were very simple, like the stuffed dog that my adoptive parents gave me when they picked me up from the Colorado State Orphanage for Neglected and Dependent Children. My mother kept for many years. I found it in her cedar chest when she passed away in 1994. To this day, I have kept the first toy I ever owned and place it under the Christmas tree every year; the stuffed dog 63 years old now. Many Other toys I talk about here as well. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/ray-martinez7/message

In honor of the Month of the Military Child in April , Hunt Military Communities (HMC) is recognising dependent children of military members nationwide, who are making a difference, with its ”Hunt Little Heroes” program. Lynette Hegeman, Marketing Director, Hunt Military Communities has the details.

In honor of the Month of the Military Child in April , Hunt Military Communities (HMC) is recognising dependent children of military members nationwide, who are making a difference, with its ”Hunt Little Heroes” program. Lynette Hegeman, Marketing Director, Hunt Military Communities has the details.

To on Its My House Podcast we shall be discussing the opportunities for Parents With Adult Dependent Children. Our LIVE STREAM number is 619-768-2945.

To on Its My House Podcast we shall be discussing the opportunities for Parents With Adult Dependent Children. Our LIVE STREAM number is 619-768-2945.

To on Its My House Podcast we shall be discussing the opportunities for Parents With Adult Dependent Children. Our LIVE STREAM number is 619-768-2945.

To on Its My House Podcast we shall be discussing the opportunities for Parents With Adult Dependent Children. Our LIVE STREAM number is 619-768-2945.

To on Its My House Podcast we shall be discussing the opportunities for Parents With Adult Dependent Children. Our LIVE STREAM number is 619-768-2945.

To on Its My House Podcast we shall be discussing the opportunities for Parents With Adult Dependent Children. Our LIVE STREAM number is 619-768-2945.

Our prayers should be shaped by the priorities of our Father (Philippians 1:3-10)

What do you do when you're ready to retire and you've still got children to look after?

The 1996 repeal of Aid to Families with Dependent Children -- the New Deal-era relief program for poor women with children -- was a seminal moment in the modern history of the US welfare state. That the charge was led by a Democratic president makes it even more noteworthy. Join us as we speak with Darren Barany, author of The New Welfare Consensus: Ideological, Political and Social Origins (SUNY Press, 2018), who helps us understand how we got there, and how various strains of conservative anti-welfare thought came to dominate our discourse and our policy. Stephen Pimpare is Senior Lecturer in the Politics & Society Program and Faculty Fellow at the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire. He is the author of The New Victorians (New Press, 2004), A Peoples History of Poverty in America (New Press, 2008), winner of the Michael Harrington Award, and Ghettos, Tramps and Welfare Queens: Down and Out on the Silver Screen (Oxford, 2017). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The 1996 repeal of Aid to Families with Dependent Children -- the New Deal-era relief program for poor women with children -- was a seminal moment in the modern history of the US welfare state. That the charge was led by a Democratic president makes it even more noteworthy. Join us as we speak with Darren Barany, author of The New Welfare Consensus: Ideological, Political and Social Origins (SUNY Press, 2018), who helps us understand how we got there, and how various strains of conservative anti-welfare thought came to dominate our discourse and our policy. Stephen Pimpare is Senior Lecturer in the Politics & Society Program and Faculty Fellow at the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire. He is the author of The New Victorians (New Press, 2004), A Peoples History of Poverty in America (New Press, 2008), winner of the Michael Harrington Award, and Ghettos, Tramps and Welfare Queens: Down and Out on the Silver Screen (Oxford, 2017). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The 1996 repeal of Aid to Families with Dependent Children -- the New Deal-era relief program for poor women with children -- was a seminal moment in the modern history of the US welfare state. That the charge was led by a Democratic president makes it even more noteworthy. Join us as we speak with Darren Barany, author of The New Welfare Consensus: Ideological, Political and Social Origins (SUNY Press, 2018), who helps us understand how we got there, and how various strains of conservative anti-welfare thought came to dominate our discourse and our policy. Stephen Pimpare is Senior Lecturer in the Politics & Society Program and Faculty Fellow at the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire. He is the author of The New Victorians (New Press, 2004), A Peoples History of Poverty in America (New Press, 2008), winner of the Michael Harrington Award, and Ghettos, Tramps and Welfare Queens: Down and Out on the Silver Screen (Oxford, 2017). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The 1996 repeal of Aid to Families with Dependent Children -- the New Deal-era relief program for poor women with children -- was a seminal moment in the modern history of the US welfare state. That the charge was led by a Democratic president makes it even more noteworthy. Join us as we speak with Darren Barany, author of The New Welfare Consensus: Ideological, Political and Social Origins (SUNY Press, 2018), who helps us understand how we got there, and how various strains of conservative anti-welfare thought came to dominate our discourse and our policy. Stephen Pimpare is Senior Lecturer in the Politics & Society Program and Faculty Fellow at the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire. He is the author of The New Victorians (New Press, 2004), A Peoples History of Poverty in America (New Press, 2008), winner of the Michael Harrington Award, and Ghettos, Tramps and Welfare Queens: Down and Out on the Silver Screen (Oxford, 2017). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The 1996 repeal of Aid to Families with Dependent Children -- the New Deal-era relief program for poor women with children -- was a seminal moment in the modern history of the US welfare state. That the charge was led by a Democratic president makes it even more noteworthy. Join us as we speak with Darren Barany, author of The New Welfare Consensus: Ideological, Political and Social Origins (SUNY Press, 2018), who helps us understand how we got there, and how various strains of conservative anti-welfare thought came to dominate our discourse and our policy. Stephen Pimpare is Senior Lecturer in the Politics & Society Program and Faculty Fellow at the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire. He is the author of The New Victorians (New Press, 2004), A Peoples History of Poverty in America (New Press, 2008), winner of the Michael Harrington Award, and Ghettos, Tramps and Welfare Queens: Down and Out on the Silver Screen (Oxford, 2017). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The 1996 repeal of Aid to Families with Dependent Children -- the New Deal-era relief program for poor women with children -- was a seminal moment in the modern history of the US welfare state. That the charge was led by a Democratic president makes it even more noteworthy. Join us as we speak with Darren Barany, author of The New Welfare Consensus: Ideological, Political and Social Origins (SUNY Press, 2018), who helps us understand how we got there, and how various strains of conservative anti-welfare thought came to dominate our discourse and our policy. Stephen Pimpare is Senior Lecturer in the Politics & Society Program and Faculty Fellow at the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire. He is the author of The New Victorians (New Press, 2004), A Peoples History of Poverty in America (New Press, 2008), winner of the Michael Harrington Award, and Ghettos, Tramps and Welfare Queens: Down and Out on the Silver Screen (Oxford, 2017). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The 1996 repeal of Aid to Families with Dependent Children -- the New Deal-era relief program for poor women with children -- was a seminal moment in the modern history of the US welfare state. That the charge was led by a Democratic president makes it even more noteworthy. Join us as we speak with Darren Barany, author of The New Welfare Consensus: Ideological, Political and Social Origins (SUNY Press, 2018), who helps us understand how we got there, and how various strains of conservative anti-welfare thought came to dominate our discourse and our policy. Stephen Pimpare is Senior Lecturer in the Politics & Society Program and Faculty Fellow at the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire. He is the author of The New Victorians (New Press, 2004), A Peoples History of Poverty in America (New Press, 2008), winner of the Michael Harrington Award, and Ghettos, Tramps and Welfare Queens: Down and Out on the Silver Screen (Oxford, 2017). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

From The Aid to Dependent Children to the current Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, our welfare system has come in many different versions and forms. What does the history of welfare tells us about its purpose and whether or not we are currently fulfilling it? See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Dianne talked about... My heart surgery—all is well. Bernie Saunders, a despicable serpent deceiving Americans! Appealing to peoples greed…everything is free, free, free! A principle… when you make people dependent on you, they will turn on you when you stop giving. Donald Trump—not a bully. He has strength to speak his mind. Why do women think he is a bully? This country is asleep! Justice Scalia passing – does this sound a little suspicious? Parents create the “monsters” we have today. Raising children to be dependent and spoiled—which sets them up to fail. People have become too “sensitive.”