~ Featuring ~
   DHS Updates Immigration Rule 
Limiting Welfare Recipients
Thomas Gallatin 
New 2,273-Page Regulation From Medicare 
Illustrates The Problems With Single Payer  
By Christopher Jacobs } ~ What do provisions in a federal regulation, released on a sleepy Friday in August, have to do with the raging debate regarding single-payer health care?... As it turns out, plenty. By definition, single-payer health care assumes that one payer will finance all the care provided by the nation’s doctors, hospitals, and other medical providers. But this premise comes with an important corollary: Funding all medical providers’ care through a single source means that source—the federal government—must pay those providers the right amount. Paying providers too much wastes taxpayer resources; paying them too little could cause them to close. Would a centralized federal bureaucracy ensure that all the country’s medical providers get paid the right amount under single payer? Suffice it to say that this conservative harbors significant doubts, and not just because the United States has a larger and more diverse population than European countries with socialized medicine systems. Consider, for instance, the regulation governing Medicare inpatient hospital payments for 2020, which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released on Friday, August 2. That 2,273-page regulation—no, that’s not a typo—included major changes to Medicare payment policies. Most notably, the final rule changed the Medicare hospital wage index. For years, hospitals in rural areas have complained that the current wage index exacerbates wage disparities, under-paying hospitals in low-wage and rural areas, while over-paying hospitals elsewhere. According to CMS, the final rule increased the wage index for many rural hospitals, while slightly reducing payment rates to other hospitals, because CMS must implement the change in a budget-neutral manner. Consider also a comment made several years ago by Donald Berwick, former CMS administrator and a strong advocate of single-payer health care. In a 1993 interview, Berwick said that “I want to see that in the city of San Diego or Seattle there are exactly as many MRI units as needed when operating at full capacity. Not less and not more.”...
NY Times Misreports Major Parts 
of Trump’s Economic Plan
by Carrie Sheffield } ~ The New York Times misreported major aspects of President Donald Trump’s economic agenda in its reported article that reads more as an editorial... “Trump’s Push to Bring Back Jobs to U.S. Shows Limited Results.” “From tax cuts to relaxed regulations to tariffs, each of President Trump’s economic initiatives is based on a promise: to set off a wave of investment and bring back jobs that the president says the United States has lost to foreign countries,” the Times starts out, while then narrowing in on a few, cherry-picked anecdotes that ignore positive macroeconomic conditions achieved under President Trump’s tenure. In a story about job creation, the Times makes no mention of record-low unemployment achieved during the Trump administration, including among women, black Americans and Latinos. The Times mentions deregulatory efforts in passing in its lead paragraph, but then doesn’t actually report anything about deregulation and its positive effect on the economy. The Times fails, for example, to mention  the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) estimating an approximate $3,100 benefit per household resulting from regulatory reform. This estimated benefit amounts to a huge pay raise for each family. The Times’ Jim Tankersley also makes no mention about wage growth, especially for those on the lower end of the economic scale. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings for all workers  in the second quarter 2019 increased by 3.7 percent over the year. And Heritage Foundation analyst Adam Michel wrote for the Foundation For Economic Education–facts that the Times ignores–about how in April, “the unemployment rate for Americans with a high school degree fell to the lowest rates since before the Great Recession...
‘We’re all in the closet’: Trump’s Hamptons supporters go underground
By Isabel Vincent } ~ President Trump’s Hamptons supporters have gone underground. While Trump attended two big-money fundraisers for the Republican Party and his 2020 re-election campaign at mansions in Southampton and Bridgehampton on Friday... many of his East End supporters are eschewing the spotlight — especially after last week’s calls for boycotts of billionaire Stephen Ross’ gyms because he hosted the president. “We are all in the closet,” said a boutique owner in Southampton who fears reprisals from his customers — most of them moneyed Democrats — if he speaks openly about his allegiance to Trump. “It’s like you have this disease and people want to run away from you.” A builder based in Westhampton worried that his customers would boycott his services if he reveals his support of the president. “People have really strong opinions here and if you go around wearing a MAGA hat, you really need to fear physical violence,” he said, adding the anti-Trump aggression comes mostly from summer residents. Trump won 51.5 percent of the vote among year-round residents of Suffolk County in the 2016 election, compared to 44.6 percent for Democrat scumbag/liar-Hillary Clinton. In 2008 and 2012, most of the county voted for Barack scumbag/liar-nObama. Despite the recent shift, many of Trump’s core supporters fear speaking out, especially during the summer months, when beachfront villages from Westhampton to Montauk are filled with left-leaning visitors from New York City...
Killing Free Speech in Canada
by Judith Bergman } ~ In May, Canada launched a so-called Digital Charter, meant to promote "trust in a digital world". The charter contains ten principles... three of which deal with "hate speech and disinformation". The charter, said Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, will target fake news and hate speech online. "The platforms are failing their users, and they're failing our citizens," he said. "They have to step up in a major way to counter disinformation. And if they don't, we will hold them to account and there will be meaningful financial consequences." "The Government of Canada," the charter says, "will defend freedom of expression and protect against online threats and disinformation designed to undermine the integrity of elections and democratic institutions. Canadians can expect that digital platforms will not foster or disseminate hate, violent extremism or criminal content." "There will be clear, meaningful penalties," it adds, "for violations of the laws and regulations that support these principles." As has become standard in such cases, the charter contains no definition of what constitutes "hate", making it a catchall for whatever the Canadian government deems politically inopportune. This is all exhaustingly familiar by now: Germany already has legislation  that requires social media platforms to censor their users. Social media companies are obliged to delete or block any online "criminal offenses" within 24 hours of receipt of a user complaint; the German government can fine them up to 50 million euros for failing to comply with the law. France is working on it. The Digital Charter was launched the week after Canada signed the "Christchurch Call to Action -- yet another  government-led drive for more censorship in the name of fighting "terrorist and violent extremist content online"... 
Longshot 2020 Democrat Says “Powerful Forces” 
on the Left Are Smearing Her Campaign
by ~ She’s flailing in the polls, her New Age spirituality has made her the most meme-worthy Democrat on the debate stages, and she doesn’t seem to have a prayer of winning the nomination... But Marianne Williamson claims that Democrats are running scared of her insurgent campaign, which has, to be fair, garnered more coverage than many other, more established competitors. In an interview with the Daily Mail this week, Williamson said that there were “powerful forces” on the left desperate to wreck her campaign and keep her off the next Democratic debate stage. As far as forces on the left go, Williamson is right about one thing: She has been attacked and vilified by liberal pundits more than almost anyone else in contention for the nomination. Just in the past month, we’ve seen left-wing bloggers assail the self-help guru for peddling a philosophy that puts the individual above the group, a person’s triumphant inner self over their life circumstances. This is, of course, a cardinal sin for any Democrat, who must always see people as being victims of SOCIETY and the many injustices therein. For a self-help author to suggest that people can overcome those circumstances…well, that just doesn’t get it. It’s far better to blame the white man. Of course, since starting her campaign, Williamson has done plenty of that as well.Nevertheless, Williamson says that criticism of her ideas is part of a “well-strategized effort to smear me.” “There’s no doubt about that,” she told the Mail. “It’s very frustrating because I like to think on the left we don’t do things like that. [Editor’s note: HA!] So it’s been a bit of a wake-up call. But apparently there’s some very powerful forces that want to make sure I’m not in that third debate so I must be doing something right if they’ve worked so hard to create that.” Once again: HA! The left, of course, does nothing BUT eat their own. If you don’t have the right opinion as a black man or as a woman or as a New Age spirituality teacher, you will be devoured by their groupthink mob. They’ve turned on Bill Maher, they’ve turned on Sam Harris, they’ve turned on loose lips liar-Joe Biden, and of course they aren’t going to tolerate Marianne Williamson, who, while she may be for reparations, doesn’t necessarily think that everyone’s problems are perpetuated by The Man. To the left, there is only one acceptable way to view minorities – be they African-Americans, women, gays, or fat people: They are victims of the oppressors. If you’re not carrying the torch for that philosophy, you might as well be a Nazi.
DHS Updates Immigration Rule Limiting Welfare Recipients
Thomas Gallatin:  On Monday, the Trump administration released its update to rules on immigration applicants that aims to limit the number of impoverished immigrants allowed to legally enter and remain in the U.S. Acting Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Ken Cuccinelli explained, “This is really an example of President Trump enforcing long-standing law that required people coming to the country or that wanted to be here long term to be self-reliant. That self-sufficiency is a core American value, and it is central to the purpose of this rule.”

Under the update, U.S. immigration authorities will view applicants’ use of government assistance programs as a negative mark against them when considering their eligibility for a temporary visa or a green card. National Review notes that “the rule change will affect those migrants seeking to enter the U.S. and those who entered the country illegally but wish to obtain legal status. [Department of Homeland Security] officials will take into account would-be immigrants’ education, skills, employment history, health, and a number of other factors to determine whether they are likely to become dependent on the government.”

The change broadens the scope of the “public charge” rule that in 1996 had been limited to only cash-assistance programs to now include non-cash government assistance programs. The change is aimed at limiting the number of new migrants who take advantage of the nation’s welfare programs. As The Wall Street Journal reports, “The use or potential use of a benefits program such as Medicaid, some types of housing assistance or food stamps could disqualify an applicant.”

The idea that the kind of immigrants who the U.S. should seek are those who are primarily motivated by the opportunities afforded by Liberty and not those looking for government-provided handouts has been long held throughout most of America’s history. And this latest effort by Trump is intended to restore this perspective on immigration within the U.S. government. Preventing further abuse of America’s arguably overly generous welfare programs is the goal.  ~The Patriot Post  

Views: 7


You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center



Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Tom StiglichPolitical Cartoons by AF Branco


Fact Check:   'Joe Biden Claims ‘We Didn’t Lock People Up In Cages’

CLAIM: Former Vice President Joe Biden claimed, on immigration: “We didn’t lock people up in cages.”

VERDICT: FALSE. The “cages” were built by the Obama-Biden administration.

Univision moderator Jorge Ramos asked Biden at the third Democrat debate at Texas Southern University in Houston, Texas, why Latinos should trust him after the Obama administration continued deporting “undocumented immigrants.”

Biden claimed that the Obama administration’s policies were more humane than those of President Donald Trump: “We didn’t lock people up in cages,” he said.

In fact, the “cages” were built by the Obama administration to deal with a surge of unaccompanied minors who crossed the border illegally in 2014.

Originally, the Obama administration was “warehousing” children — literally — in overwhelmed Border Patrol facilities. Breitbart News broke the story of the surge, which was partly triggered by Obama’s policy of allowing illegal alien children who entered the country as minors to stay in the country (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA).

Above image credit: AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin, Pool, File

The above photo was published by the Associated Press in June 2014, and the photo below is of Obama’s Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, touring a Border Patrol facility with “cages.”

Above: Border Patrol officers escort Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Gov. Jan Brewer through the department’s Nogales processing facility for immigrant children. (Photo courtesy Barry Bahler/Department of Homeland Security)

The “cages” are chain-link enclosures in Border Patrol processing facilities that are meant to protect children from adults in custody. They are not permanent accommodations.

In mid-2018, as the Trump administration began enforcing a “zero tolerance” policy that stopped the “catch-and-release” policy of letting illegal aliens go after they were arrested. Detaining adults and children meant that children had to be processed separately; the enclosures prevented adults from harming children.

As Breitbart News reported at the time, children were not housed in “cages.” They were processed and then taken to shelters, where they were given medical care, toiletries, education, recreation, and counseling, and where staff attempted to find relatives or sponsors to whom they could be released.

Democrats began tweeting images of “kids in cages” to condemn the Trump administration. Journalists, too, shared those images.

One problem: they were taken during the Obama administration.

Public outrage at the images led President Trump to end the policy, and require families to be detained together.

Democrats keep repeating the mistake, however: in July, they had to delete a tweet that used an image from the Obama era and cited the “inhumane treatment” of children by the Trump administration.

Republicans argue that not detaining illegal aliens is actually the cruel policy, because it encourages migrants to undertake a dangerous journey, often guided by cartels and smugglers.

As Breitbart News’ Alana Mastrangelo noted recently:

But what’s worse than “cages,” however, are reports of migrant children also being handed over to human traffickers during the Obama administration — while Biden was vice president — according to the New York Times. Between October 2013 and July 2015 alone, nearly 80,000 unaccompanied children from Central American countries were detained by U.S. authorities.

It remains unclear how many of the tens of thousands of children were handed over to human traffickers — including sex traffickers — during that span of nearly two years, as those cases are reportedly not tracked.

“Others were ransomed by the very smugglers to whom their families paid thousands of dollars to sneak them into the United States,” reported the New York Times in 2015, during Obama’s presidency and Biden’s vice presidency. “Some lost limbs during the journey or found themselves sold into sexual slavery.”

Biden told voters in South Carolina last month that he would close all border detention facilities, guaranteeing that the migrant flow would continue.

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service